Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Staffordshire Regiment

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future role of the Staffordshire regiment; and if he will make a statement. [2040]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The Staffordshire regiment is currently a light infantry battalion employed in the national defence role. The strategic defence review, launched on 28 May, will decide how our armed forces should be structured, equipped and deployed to meet our nation's interests and commitments. It would be premature to assess the likely outcome of the review before the process is complete.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the Minister and, indeed, the Secretary of State to their posts.
The Minister will recall that in 1991 there were contingency plans to merge the Staffordshire regiment with the Cheshires. As the Staffordshire regiment is one

of only two county regiments in the British Army, and the morale of soldiers in the Staffordshire regiment will not be helped by the strategic defence review, will the Minister give some added assurance that the regiment, which was founded in Lichfield in 1705 and has an illustrious 300-year history, will have some future under a Labour Government?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I recall the proposals that the Conservative Government made regarding the Staffordshire regiment, which were then reversed after a campaign by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am happy to acknowledge the regiment's long and proud history of service to the Crown which, as the hon. Gentleman said, dates back to 1705. I fully appreciate the sense of regimental identity and the close links that regiments may enjoy with the local community, but the hon. Gentleman—and hon. Members who may ask similar questions in respect of other regiments—will appreciate, as the regiment does, that it would be quite wrong to announce decisions about the outcome of the wide-ranging review before it has even started.

Mr. Maginnis: In support of what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested, I pay tribute to the Staffordshire regiment, which has served for five of the last 20 years in Northern Ireland with considerable distinction. It lost a man in south Armagh in 1984, and it served again in my constituency more recently. May I suggest to the Minister that it is wrong to keep our security services generally in a state of limbo and that six years after "Options for Change" it is time for consolidation? I implore him to move towards reassuring the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

Dr. Reid: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to his backing for the Staffordshire regiment, which has served not only in Northern Ireland but in the Gulf war.
The ultimate purpose of the strategic defence review is to give the clarity of direction and the coherence to our strategy in foreign affairs and defence matters that have


been singularly lacking throughout the past six or seven years, during which we have had one mini-review after another, regiments have been merged and chopped only to be reinstated and millions have been paid out in redundancy payments only to find that we are now short of soldiers. After a period of chaos and instability, the armed forces are entitled to ask that a new Government give some coherence and clarity, as we shall do with the strategic defence review.

Trident Missile System

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total cost of the Trident missile system over its remaining operational life. [2041]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Remaining acquisition costs for the Trident system, as at September 1996, stood at just under £1.5 billion. Operating costs will average £200 million per annum over a 30-year in-service life.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that that cost is astronomical and that the money could be much better used on the much needed social infrastructure of this country—health, education and housing—and that nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability will be included in the defence review? Will the Department give a serious answer to the International Court of Justice decision regarding the legality and morality of any state in the world holding nuclear weapons?

Mr. Spellar: I confirm that the figures that I have given constitute 1 per cent. of the defence budget over the next 30 years. I should also point out that both my hon. Friend and I stood at the last election on a manifesto in which we said very firmly that we would retain Trident.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister clarify his answer? Does it mean that the Labour Government will keep four boats in service throughout the period in question—throughout the operational life of the Trident missile system—and that one boat will be kept permanently on station, so that the full deterrent effectiveness can be maintained?

Mr. Spellar: The answer is quite straightforward. The fourth boat has already been ordered, and will be delivered. We shall be looking at retaining the minimal deterrent that is necessary to fulfil our obligations.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited the former Yugoslavia to discuss the British contribution to IFOR. [2042]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I visited the former Yugoslavia from 19 to 20 May and had very useful discussions with the multinational stabilisation force and with United Kingdom commanders and troops. I also had meetings with members of the Bosnian presidency and the entity Defence Ministers.

Mr. Crausby: When my right hon. Friend next meets his American counterpart, will he stress the importance of

United States participation in European security, and also stress that our common policy on Bosnia should be "in together, out together"?

Mr. Robertson: When I met the American Secretary of Defence last week, I made it clear that the success of SFOR—the stabilisation force—is down not just to NATO and the NATO countries whose forces are serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but to the other nations involved there, and to Ukraine and Russia, which are partners in this regard. That is part of the considerable success that we have achieved in the area, providing a unique opportunity for previously warring factions to rebuild civic institutions there.
I have reminded the Americans, and will continue to remind them, that the Dayton peace accords were a substantial triumph for western and, perhaps especially, American diplomacy. We should not rashly throw away the rewards that have been achieved. The main point at present, however, is that the burden of responsibility lies with the Bosnian leadership, which has not done enough. The international community will not be taken for granted. We went in together, we stay in together, we have succeeded together, and if nothing happens on the ground we shall clearly have to leave together as well.

Mr. Brazier: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to their posts, to which I am sure that they will bring considerable energy and imagination. May I none the less urge the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of the answer that he has just given and the answer given earlier by his hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces about the defence review, to remember that the primary purpose of Britain's armed forces is the defence of this country and its vital interests in a very dangerous world? Peacekeeping is an activity, not the principal purpose.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the warm and appropriate welcome that he gave the new Ministers. I know that the point has been well taken on the Opposition Front Bench, however temporary that may be.
The hon. Gentleman is right: the primary role of our armed forces is the defence of Britain and Britain's interests. However, we also have a wider international responsibility. When I met our troops serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina a few weeks ago, I was proud of them and I was impressed by the job that they are doing on behalf of the international community, along with representatives of that community, in maintaining peace in a part of the world that has scarred Europe for many generations. Together, as an international community, we have provided a rare moment of opportunity for people to dig themselves out of the situation and build a permanent peace.

Mr. Dalyell: Could the difficult old question of local allowances for our service men in the British Army of the Rhine, who have had to leave their families behind in Fallingbostel or elsewhere, be reconsidered? When they go to Bosnia, they lose the allowances that they had in Germany. Can my right hon. Friend imagine the wry smiles of the men of B squadron of the Scots Dragoon Guards when they learn that the Canadians, with whom


they are doing manoeuvres, get free telephone calls for as long as they like to Canada, whereas the Scots' telephone calls are financially restricted?

Mr. Robertson: I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished record of service with that regiment and I was extremely pleased to meet it in Baraci just before he arrived on the scene. His point was made to me there, too. However, the matter is not as uncomplicated as he suggests. Some of the troops from the 34 nations serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina have different allowances and benefit from different regimes, but the allowances paid in Germany are for specific circumstances which are not deemed to relate to service in Bosnia. I listened with great care to the points that were made politely and sensibly by our forces in that part of the world. We shall keep these issues under permanent review.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of necessary and valuable service in Bosnia, men in some units, such as the Queen's Royal Hussars, have spent two and a half of the past five years away from their families? How does he intend to address the problem of overstretch?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am aware of the stresses and strains which face those who serve in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and other parts of the world where British forces are committed, never mind those who serve in the homeland. The problem of overstretch will be seriously addressed in our strategic defence review because it is fundamental to how well and how professionally our forces discharge the roles that we ask them to perform in the world today.
The strategic defence review is not some ploy by an incoming Government: it is a determined attempt to provide clarity and vision for the future of this country and to ensure that when our troops discharge the obligations that the people want us to place on them they are not hindered by the problems of overstretch that many of them face today.

Land Mines

Ms Dari Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking in relation to anti-personnel land mines. [2043]

Mr. George Robertson: On 21 May we announced that we would ban all trade in anti-personnel land mines involving the United Kingdom—that is, their import, export, transfer and manufacture. We also introduced a complete moratorium on their operational use. We will phase out our stocks of such land mines by 2005 at the latest.

Ms Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, and I am delighted with his answer. The moratorium on land mines is long overdue. Will the moratorium extend to the JP-233 airfield denial weapon?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome, and I welcome her to the House. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I were able to discharge our clear manifesto commitment so quickly after coming to power. Few people in this country

could tolerate any longer the continued use in the world of these disgraceful and almost immoral weapons. Our move is designed as a signal and as part of a momentum that we hope will encompass all those involved with such weaponry.
When I visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, I flew over some of the most stunningly beautiful land in the world. It was impossible to believe that we could not land on it or walk on it. Future generations may not be able to do so either, because of the estimated 3 million land mines that have been spread throughout that country.
The JP-233 falls within the definition of an anti-personnel land mine under the terms of revised protocol 2 to the United Nations weaponry convention and so is covered by the moratorium that we have announced.

Mr. Robathan: In a spirit of friendly co-operation I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his team for the entertainment value that they will bring to the Government Front Bench. I certainly agree that we all deplore land mines and I also agree with the moratorium. Does the Secretary of State agree that none of the 3 million anti-personnel mines laid in Bosnia was British? Can he say specifically when an anti-personnel mine was last manufactured in the United Kingdom and when an anti-personnel mine was last exported?

Mr. Robertson: Anti-personnel mines were used by this country in the Gulf war and in the Falklands conflict. This country adopted a responsible way of doing that with marked minefields, and all the mines were subsequently taken up. The point is not whether we have exported or manufactured anti-personnel land mines in the past, but the fact that there is currently no legal regime to prevent their being manufactured or exported. We shall introduce legislation to achieve that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
The subject of anti-personnel land mines holds no entertainment value at all: it is a deeply serious subject which has galvanised the United State Congress and many people throughout the world. What we are doing is not a gesture, but part of a worldwide movement to outlaw a particular type of weapon which should have been outlawed a long time ago.

Merchant Ships

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the availability of British merchant ships for defence purposes. [2044]

Dr. John Reid: The availability of militarily useful British merchant ships which might be used for defence purposes is kept under regular review as part of our normal planning.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the former Conservative Government's policy meant that in the massive sea operation, Purple Heart, between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government, not one British merchant vessel was engaged or chartered? Likewise, when we shipped troops and machines to Bosnia, not one British


merchant ship was engaged. The American navy moved the troops and equipment. As a result of the Conservative Government's lack of confidence, our merchant fleet is run down; manpower is reducing, training has almost stopped, and if action is not taken to improve the merchant fleet's facilities and equipment, our future could be in jeopardy. Will the Minister take note of my concerns, which have also been expressed by many others, with a view to strengthening the British merchant fleet?

Dr. Reid: I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's concerns. I fully understand and share his profound regret at the decline of the British flagged fleet under the last Tory Government. He may be reassured that the Government are committed to working with all concerned to help to develop the industry's economic potential to the full. We are supremely conscious of the value of merchant ships and of seafarers to man them in times of crisis, and I will ensure that my officials enjoy a close and productive relationship with the Chamber of Shipping.

Mr. Soames: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends to their important jobs and I wish them every success in what I am sure will be an interesting time for them. Does the Minister agree about the extreme importance to the joint rapid deployment force of securing the second lease on a roll-on roll-off ferry? Will he confirm that, despite the defence review, and bearing in mind the importance of the joint rapid deployment force, the Government intend to go ahead with that second lease?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and may I be the first to welcome him to his new role as a shadow? [Interruption.] I have looked forward for some time to saying that. I completely accept the important role of the ro-ro ferry that he mentions in the joint rapid deployment force and in other possible expeditionary ventures of that nature. He will appreciate, however, that it would not be wise—before we have even started a review—to start ring-fencing every issue that is raised by every hon. Member, every regiment and every other item. Nevertheless, I appreciate the important role that the item that he has mentioned plays in our future rapid deployment force.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As a result of the cynical rundown of the British fleet by the Conservative Government, fewer and fewer people go into any kind of merchant fleet training and we cannot operate any fleet, either safely or unsafely, unless we have the personnel. Will my hon. Friend therefore examine the training programmes closely and do his best to expand the number of British youngsters being trained to go to sea?

Dr. Reid: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who asked the main question on this, I share the regret at the dramatic decline in both shipping and training during the period of the last Conservative Government. We shall obviously have to consider that and the sectors on which we might militarily depend. I mention merely that we should not forget that the Ministry of Defence maintains one of the largest civilian fleets in Europe in the form of 17 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I take this opportunity to pay

tribute to its important work around the globe and I know that its excellent training and cadetship are highly regarded throughout the shipping industry, but it is small compensation in the face of the decline in other sectors over the past 20 years.

Defence Review

Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is being given to defence procurement in the strategic defence review. [2045]

Mr. George Robertson: The strategic defence review will ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks that we ask of them. The Government are also committed to a strong British defence industry, as a strategic part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on their appointment. What progress has either he or the Prime Minister made in talks with their German opposite numbers on the European fighter aircraft? The Secretary of State will know that it is important to my constituency not just because of British Aerospace, but because of the number of smaller defence contractors who are dependent on the aircraft going into full production. Does he agree that the aircraft is important for this country's future defence capability and that we want to ensure that the Royal Air Force gets the best equipment possible?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I agree with the points that he has made. We made it clear before the election that we supported the Eurofighter programme and we shall order it according to the conditions and numbers previously announced. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the Eurofighter is not simply about jobs because it will form the primary component of the RAF's fighting capability. Two weeks ago in Bonn, I met the German Defence Minister, Herr Rae, whom I have known for many years. He confirmed that the German Government wanted the Eurofighter and intended, if they could, to go ahead with it. He aimed to get agreement from the German Cabinet's budget meeting on 11 July.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Chancellor Kohl on 6 June, the Chancellor made clear his personal commitment to the Eurofighter programme and his aim to secure the German Government's commitment to the production phase in July within the framework of the draft 1998 federal budget. Those were extremely good signs for the future of the Eurofighter programme and we await with great interest the outcome of the German Government's review.

Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend, may I persuade him of the great importance to Britain of the future large aircraft project? In my constituency, 2,500 Airbus workers manufactured the wings of the Airbus airliners and would like to manufacture the wings of the future large aircraft. Will he receive a small deputation on the matter, particularly bearing it in mind that the late delivery of the Lockheed C 130J has let down his Department so far?

Mr. Robertson: Over the 18 years that I occupied the Opposition Front Bench, I never realised how popular one


could become if one became Secretary of State for Defence: the offers to keep me company in my office every hour of the day or night, to discuss every procurement contract, warm me enormously.
We do not intend to impose a moratorium on existing contracts as part of our strategic defence review. Business will proceed as normally as possible and projects already under contract will continue. For future contracts, we shall consider major equipment projects according to their individual circumstances and in relation to progress on the review. I shall certainly consider meeting my hon. Friend, but he may find that his best first step in putting his case would be to request a meeting with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gilbert, the Minister for Defence Procurement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleagues. Does he accept that the Eurofighter project enjoys all-party support—despite the fact that his predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo, entertained the notion of leasing second-hand F16 aircraft for the Royal Air Force, which would undoubtedly have undermined the whole Eurofighter project?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that the defence review will not be a smokescreen behind which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can mount a dawn raid on the defence budget?

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his warm welcome. I look forward to working with him and the official Opposition spokesmen in building what will be a genuine consensus on defence. For too long, defence has been a political football. I hope that our strategic defence review will, at long last, bring about the consensus on defence that I believe is wanted by the vast majority of people.
I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for the Eurofighter project. It should be understood that it is important both for its European symbolism and as a major multinational contract to build a European aircraft to meet European needs.
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the strategic defence review will be foreign policy led, based on the priorities that we believe are important for this country in the world as a whole. It will not be predicated on savings in any other budget. We shall look for value for money in everything on which the defence budget is spent—the people expect no less than that—but I repeat that the review will be foreign policy led and not Treasury led.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the defence review is finally under way, how independent will it be of service pressures?

Mr. Robertson: We shall listen to the views of the services, just as we shall listen to the views of the public. We also intend to take into account the views of the Opposition parties and the views of experts. Through the two seminars that will be organised in July, and through our invitation to the public, we intend to bear in mind as many different views as possible before reaching a considered conclusion. Obviously, the services will contribute their views—as they rightly should.
I have made it clear to the troops, at every level, that I expect to hear their views as to what they want the outcome to be. I visited the Royal Naval college at Greenwich last week, where the joint senior command course is being held. The services represented there include the civil service as well as the police force. They are carrying out their own strategic defence review, and I have asked for a copy of that to be submitted to me so that I can build it into our considerations.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his team to their important positions. Is it true that there are papers circulating within the Ministry of Defence envisaging spending cuts of £3 billion or more?

Mr. Robertson: If there are, they are probably left over from the last Administration. On a more conciliatory note, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. After 18 years in opposition, I know how he feels. After 18 years, he might have half a chance of getting it right.
I know of no papers suggesting budget cuts. We shall put the foreign policy priorities of this country first and then give a sense of clarity and direction to our forces as to how their roles can be properly and economically carried out for the future of our country.

Mr. Radice: I welcome my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to their new positions.
May I say that, as a former officer in Her Majesty's Coldstream Guards, I am absolutely confident that the defence strategic review is a good idea? I am also confident that Her Majesty's defence is in good hands.

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend—who is one of my oldest friends in politics—for his kind and generous remarks. On Saturday, the Guards regiments performed Trooping the Colour with their customary skill and professionalism, as I am sure that the public noticed.
I also thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the strategic defence review. Despite a few grudging remarks from one or two small quarters, the idea for such a review was welcomed by people from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament right across to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), Mr. David Hart and Mr. Douglas Hurd. They all support the idea that the United Kingdom should examine both our defence needs in an international context and how to marry our military resources to those needs. I hope that we can maintain that broad consensus of welcome until the exercise is completed.

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence the continuation of which procurement programmes will be under consideration in the strategic defence review. [2046]

Mr. George Robertson: There will be no moratorium, and business will proceed as normally as possible. Decisions on major equipment programmes not yet under contract will be considered on their individual circumstances and in relation to progress with the review. Projects already under contract will continue.

Mr. Spring: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the crucial importance of advanced and effective


anti-armour weaponry in modern warfare. Therefore, will he assure the House that, in any strategic review, the Brimstone programme will not be put in jeopardy?

Mr. Robertson: We shall examine all procurement proposals in the light of the strategic defence review proposals. We shall not have a moratorium and do not believe that there should be a further long period of uncertainty for our armed forces. Avoiding such uncertainty is why we are proceeding quickly with the review, which will report by the end of the year. The time period is sufficiently brief to ensure that there is no further uncertainty for those who, in the past five years, have experienced maximum uncertainty, but is also sufficiently ambitious to ensure that the right decisions are made.

Mr. Cohen: In the procurement programme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do not purchase any more "use it or lose it" weaponry—which is weaponry that has to be used in an early strike?

Mr. Robertson: We shall look at all the procurement projects proposed by the military that are considered to be in the interests of the country's defence. The strategic defence review will examine some future proposals, but it will not affect current procurement decisions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman and the tone of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), may I ask him to agree that nothing is more corrosive of morale than uncertainty? Will he give a firm undertaking that, when the review is complete, there will be no further attempt to examine or cut down the armed forces during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Robertson: It would be foolish and rash for any Government to say that, irrespective of circumstances, nothing will be re-examined. We are conducting a major strategic review, and, as the hon. Gentleman will have registered, it has been welcomed by a wide cross-section of opinion, including senior members of the Conservative party. The review offers an opportunity for everyone to become involved in the process of reaching a considered decision. Clearly, however, we shall have to bear in mind any changed external circumstances and ensure that our armed forces are ready for any future threats that might develop.

Defence Diversification Agency

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to establish a defence diversification agency. [2047]

Mr. Spellar: The Government will be making proposals in the autumn on how best to give effect to the objectives for defence diversification as outlined in our manifesto. They will include how best to harness the contribution of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to those objectives.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister agree that the success of any defence diversification agency would depend on

the defence industry extending its expertise to civilian industry? Would that not help British industry to take advantage of commercial opportunities in future?

Mr. Spellar: Very much so. The objective of defence diversification is to widen the contribution made by the UK defence industrial base to Britain's economic performance by diversifying some of its technological processes and manufacturing skills into new markets and to ensure better co-ordination between Government Departments on issues such as regional policy, training and business planning in order to develop a positive strategy for industrial regeneration. However, we also have to stress that it is not a one-way street: the Ministry of Defence and the forces would also benefit from having a broader, more resilient supplier base for the future.

Mr. Burns: Is the Minister aware that my constituency has paid a very high price for the peace dividend because of our reliance on defence-related industries and that, only last week, there were 535 redundancies at GEC Marconi Communications? Given that such companies have, over the past eight years or so, actively and positively sought to broaden their manufacturing base by diversifying, what practical help can be given in advance of any review because, sadly, redundancies cannot wait until the result of that review?

Mr. Spellar: I very much take the hon. Gentleman's point and fully understand the difficulties that his constituency has faced, especially in recent weeks as a result of the closures. That is why we would very much welcome approaches from companies and from the hon. Gentleman himself as to means by which we can take the process forward and examine defence diversification. The fact that we are looking at a mechanism being announced in the autumn does not mean that we have to stand still at the moment and ignore sensible proposals made to us. I would greatly welcome such proposals from the hon. Gentleman.

Service Pensions

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the defence review will include a comprehensive review of service pensions. [2048]

Dr. John Reid: The strategic defence review will deal with many aspects of defence policy, but it is not expected to cover service pensions. The Government will, however, keep personnel issues relating to the armed forces, including pensions, under full consideration.

Mr. Gray: In that case, will the Minister take urgent steps to examine the case of British prisoners of war from the second world war whose pay, as he will know, was cut by a half from the day they were captured until the day they were released? Will he take that fact into account when he considers their pensions and their widows' pensions?

Dr. Reid: Although it is not related to service pensions, I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is being considered at present, and I thank him for


the representations that he has made. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be bringing news of any decision to the House in due course, and in the not too distant future.

Mr. MacShane: The Minister will be aware of the deplorable indifference of the Conservative party when in government to the problem of war veterans, their pensions and so on. He will also know of the calls from the Labour party when in opposition for a Minister to be responsible for veterans' issues. Can the Minister say which of his distinguished colleagues is the point of contact when we want to take up matters concerning veterans who served, in one way or another, in the armed forces?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will be aware that many of the issues, including some of those relating to pensions, are under the control and administration of the Department of Social Security. However, he is right to refer to the deplorable record of the last Government and their treatment of personnel issues and of service men and women before, during and after their service to this country. We shall be considering how best to meet the requirement for a veterans' unit in the Ministry of Defence, and I can tell him that the distinguished member of the defence team to whom he referred will be me.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the claims of the British nuclear test veterans. [2051]

Mr. Spellar: Under the provisions of the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, a war pension may be awarded in respect of any death or disablement which is due to service in the armed forces. Claims for war pensions have been received from ex-service personnel who participated in the nuclear tests and awards have been made where there is reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the death or disablement is due to service.

Mr. Rowlands: Are there not many outstanding claims? Is it not true that the United States Government have settled all the claims of men affected by nuclear tests? Could we not follow their example and be rather more generous in responding to the many veterans who have suffered illness consequent on their service?

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is right in that the United States has made a decision to pay compensation to the Marshall islanders who were near the tests. It will, no doubt, have taken account of the facts of the specific case, as we are doing in the case of British nuclear test veterans. We are having to work on the basis of scientific evidence and the facts made available to us by the National Radiological Protection Board. We shall continue to work on that. As my hon. Friend will know, in the related issue of workers in Chatham dockyard who were exposed to radiation, we are making major efforts to improve access to records to enable them best to pursue their case and interests.

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the Front-Bench Members to their duties in the Ministry of Defence.
Will serious consideration be given to the ruling on the breach of articles 6 and 8 of the convention? Will it therefore be possible for the Government to ensure that more veterans who were subjected to nuclear testing have access to their own war records, which always seems to be a problem for those individuals? As it was ruled that there appeared to be a lack of candour from the last Government, can we have candour from this Government and, I hope, action for those people?

Mr. Spellar: Many of the records on the atmospheric nuclear tests have already been released to the public and, as the hon. Lady knows, veterans have drawn on those records in making their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Other records are currently being reviewed for release. However, some will need to remain classified if they contain details of weapons design, as the release of such information would breach the Government's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. The Government do not accept the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights that lack of access to unspecified contemporary yield and radiation records prevented the veterans from getting a fair hearing before the pensions appeal tribunal.

Mr. McWilliam: Does my hon. Friend understand that the records that have been released and some that have not were looked at by the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament? Does he realise how conflicting some of the evidence is and will he undertake to revisit that evidence in detail, particularly in respect of the Bikini atoll tests?

Mr. Spellar: The study that was undertaken by Sir Richard Doll and the National Radiological Protection Board has been widely publicised and subjected to scientific review. We are not aware of any substantial scientific criticisms of that study, but if such criticisms exist, we are prepared to examine them.

Defence Review

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue a mission statement for his Department before the defence review. [2052]

Dr. John Reid: Yes.

Mr. Simpson: Like my colleagues, I welcome the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to their new positions—Scotland's loss is defence's gain.
In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State said that the strategic defence review was going to be Foreign Office led; but in the Foreign Office mission statement, which was released after 10 days by the Foreign Secretary, there is barely any mention of security or defence matters. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the exact benchmarks that will be established in the defence mission statement, especially those relating to the size of the defence budget?

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but have to tell him that my right hon. Friend did not say that the review would be Foreign Office led—he said that it would be foreign policy led. The aim of the Ministry of Defence is to provide the defence capabilities needed to ensure the security and defence of the United Kingdom and


our dependent territories and to help discharge our international responsibilities by supporting the Government's foreign policy objectives and contributing to wider international peace and security. We intend to issue shortly revised aims and objectives for my Department in the form of a mission statement.

Mr. Miller: In such a mission statement, will my hon. Friend consider including some of the activities of Her Majesty's forces that are less understood by the public? I am thinking particularly of the Royal Navy, where our forces are engaged in anti-drugs activities and support Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Dr. Reid: I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend, who I know has been a great supporter of the forces. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I recommend to all hon. Members who have not yet completed it, including, I understand, the Opposition Front-Bench team. As for the mission statement, we shall certainly look not only at our basic aims—defending our country, and its dependent territories' freedoms and interests, and discharging our international responsibilities—but at the wider themes outlined by my right hon. Friend. the Secretary of State for Defence. Those themes involve caring for our people, contributing to our community, and establishing good communications in order to ensure the widest participation in, and support for, our defence policies and priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Private Contractors

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment the commission has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the Comptroller and Auditor General to evaluate whether private suppliers of services purchased by public authorities are meeting the terms of their contracts and providing value for money. [2030]

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission regularly meets to assess the adequacy of the resources available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Resources required to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of services purchased by public authorities and provided by private suppliers are included in the estimates, but are not assessed separately. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not, however, have a guaranteed right of access to the records of contractors where the activities of Government Departments are contracted out. The then Chairman of the commission and I recommended to the previous Administration that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have such access and I hope that we can achieve that aim under the present Administration.

Mr. Bayley: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission for his useful response. Will he consider the position of passenger rail services which,

as a result of privatisation, now attract a much larger public subsidy than when they were run by British Rail? Does the Chairman agree that the audit trail is inevitably much more complicated when one has to follow it through to contractors? Does he also agree that access to private rail operators' records is necessary if the Government are to ensure that value for money is achieved as a result of that increased public subsidy?

Mr. Sheldon: There is unquestionably a need for greater access. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have access to contracted-out functions. In addition, he does not have the same rights of access to final recipients of European Union funds in the United Kingdom, although the European Court of Auditors does. That is a gap, and I shall continue to press for Government action to fill it.

Mr. Rowe: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman, whose chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee has been long and distinguished.
I also welcome this opportunity to place on record for the first time in this Parliament that, as a Conservative Member, I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is a big gap in the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers. The capacity to follow public money and its effectiveness further than is currently the case is an indispensable part of an effective Public Accounts Committee and of the Comptroller and Auditor General's function. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make every effort to urge the new Administration to take that on board.

Mr. Sheldon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks.
There was unanimity in the Public Accounts Committee on the need to follow public money into some areas where private contractors are involved. As the hon. Gentleman said, we shall have to make progress on that issue.

Role of the Commission

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions he has had with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the role of the Public Accounts Commission. [2031]

Mr. Sheldon: Since becoming Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I have not yet had discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The role of the Commission is set out in legislation, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has been a Treasury Minister. He has been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for 14 years, and he has worked closely with the National Audit Office throughout that time. Does he agree that there is no better organization—no more independent organization—capable of carrying out a review of the nation's finances, especially with a view to establishing what the nation's liabilities are?

Mr. Sheldon: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said about the National Audit Office. Its standing has


undoubtedly grown during the past several years, and the people and accountants involved in it have the highest reputation in the country. However, in preparing their forecasts of the public finances, they will review the assumptions adopted for economic growth, unemployment and interest rates and the conventions used for projecting proceeds from privatisation and from those measures that are called spend to save. I believe that the reputation of the National Audit Office will be fully vindicated by the report that we shall shortly receive.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Accounts (Surplus)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what factors underlie the surplus of £1.9 million in the accounts published in the Church Commission Report 1996. [2032]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: May I assure the House that the thunder that is outside at the moment, rattling around the precincts of the House, is nothing to do with my appointment as Second Church Estates Commissioner?
In answer to my hon. Friend, the £1.9 million figure represents the unconsolidated surplus in the commissioners' own books. The actual consolidated surplus is £9 million.

Mr. Flynn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as our official conduit to the Almighty, but may I address my remarks to the rather more worldly financial turmoil of the Church of England? Will he meet those organisations that are campaigning for recovery of Church funds through the parishes protection group, who were asking why we have not had the independent investigation that the Social Security Select Committee has asked for into the £1 billion lost fund of the Church of England and the £2.5 billion shortfall in the funds for clergy pensions?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have spent a weekend on the Queen Anne's Bounty and the First Fruits and Tenths, so I am edging my way into the high finance of the Church. Evidence was given to the Social Security Select Committee; the Committee has not raised further issues with the commissioners at this time. Clearly, any further submissions will be looked at and will be taken into account by the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I also extend my welcome to the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his important post.
When the hon. Gentleman considers that surplus in the recent accounts, will he look at the Pensions Measure 1997, which was passed in the previous Parliament? It will require all dioceses and parishes to pay all future pensions—a move that will place a severe strain on some

parishes and dioceses and may make some unviable. If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman consult on the subject of whether some of the future pensions in some specific dioceses should be paid from the centre?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Pensions Measure received Royal Assent at Eastertime. The actual surplus figures reflect a programme of cutting expenditure and rebalancing the allocation of assets. The aim is to bring the commissioners' assets and liabilities into a more sustainable balance. On that basis—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree—the commissioners can better preserve their support for the needier dioceses and parishes.

Relationship with Parliament

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners will review their relationship with, and accountability to, Parliament. [2033]

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We should certainly wish to review the role of Parliament in relation to the Church and we should wish to begin with the Question Time which we have available by leave of the Speaker and the leadership of the House. Obviously, it is not enough to have a five-minute question spot in order to deal with all questions regarding the Church.

Mr. Mackinlay: With the greatest respect to the Church of England and the commissioners, may I invite my hon. Friend to consider that, in a modern democratic Parliament containing—at the very most—a minority of Members who are communicants of the Church of England, it is not sensible or right to have a parliamentary Question Time for this function? Even while the Church remains established, should not the commissioners come to Parliament and have their powers and jurisdiction repatriated to them so that they can make their own statutes? It is not the function of a modern Parliament to have questions answered relating to just one denomination: it is time for a review.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is making the case for a disestablished Church. That is not a matter for the commissioners. We in this Parliament have to ensure that there is no disestablishment by stealth or by disorganisation. At the moment, Church and Parliament are as one; it would be for others to open any debate on the subject of establishment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am reminded by a colleague that, when the Welsh Church was disestablished, the money went not to the Church but to the universities. I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his responsibilities. We are grateful to the commissioners for coming to Parliament and talking to the Ecclesiastical Committee. It has proved an advance that the early stages of Church legislation should be considered by Synod rather than going through all stages in this House.
Perhaps we might have a day's debate in a year or two on general Church issues, when the sort of point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) could be aired. We need to consider not only legislation but a wider review of the work of the Church—which has more to do with Bible than balance sheets.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. The distinction between Bible and balance sheet was no doubt clear in the minds of those who

wished for my appointment. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that Lloyd George disestablished the Church in Wales. Once it was disestablished, he forgot about it and went on to higher things.
I hope, during the years leading up to the millennium, for greater Church participation in this Parliament. After all, the millennium is the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance, and I draw to the attention of the House what I believe to be the unreasonable withholding of information by the Government and contradictory parliamentary answers given in the Official Report.
Last week, I asked each Department for the numbers and percentages of documents passed to the Public Record Office in 1996. Some Departments replied that producing the information would incur "disproportionate cost". Other Departments, however, produced the information. The wording used in the questions—about what happened in particular cases and to particular documents—was identical to the form of question used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) in the Official Report of 2 July 1990, at column 426. At the time, the Department of Trade and Industry answered each question to within one decimal point; yet the same Department—in the form, this time, of the Minister responsible for consumer affairs—tells us seven years later that to collect the information would incur disproportionate cost.
With the Government not pursuing a freedom of information Bill, many Members of the House are concerned about the withholding of information—and such contradictory answers merely serve to underline their concern. Can you, Madam Speaker, help the House by ensuring that information that is properly requested is provided?

Madam Speaker: I have no responsibility for ministerial answers. I advise the hon. Gentleman, in his own best interests, to pursue the point with the Minister concerned.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I should be grateful for clarification of the money resolution of the Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading last week. A number of amendments have not been selected and it is not my task to question Madam Speaker's selection, nor would it be correct for me to do so.
However, it has been suggested that the money resolution is tightly drawn and that, as some of the amendments have implications for Government expenditure that go beyond the provisions of the money resolution, they are out of order. If amendments are approved which involve additional financial expenditure by the Government, how do we set about amending the money resolution? It is so tightly drawn that there seems to be no scope for additional expenditure, which is why many perfectly good amendments cannot be selected by Madam Speaker, and are therefore not before us to debate this afternoon.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, which will not be to his pleasure, is that Ministers of the Crown have the initiative on expenditure matters, and it is therefore not possible to extend by amendments the expenditure implied by the Bill.
As a footnote on procedural matters, the Chairman of Ways and Means selects amendments for Committees of the whole House, not Madam Speaker.

Clause 1

PROHIBITION OF SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 8, leave out
'the words "a small calibre-pistol" shall cease to have effect.'
and insert
'after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted.'
The amendment attempts to persuade the Government that the Bill should provide for the retention of .22 small-calibre pistols in special circumstances. The noble Lord Cullen' s report does not suggest that single-shot weapons are a danger to the public. On the contrary, paragraph 9.59 of his report says:
While all firearms are by definition lethal an individual shot from a handgun, depending on the distance and calibre, may well be less lethal than a shot from a shot gun or a rifle. However, the multi-shot handgun, whether it is a self-loading pistol or a revolver, has the capacity by reason of its high rate of fire and speed of aim to kill or injure a greater number of people within a given short space of time than would be possible with any other type of firearm which is legally available".
Lord Cullen constructed his recommendations on that basic premise. He clearly distinguished between self-loading pistols and revolvers that are held for target shooting and "other types of firearms".
The Bill is meant to deal with circumstances in which a system of control breaks down. In a tragedy like Dunblane, it is argued that too much damage can be done before control can be reimposed. That is not so, however, with a single-shot pistol, which is why Lord Cullen excluded it.
The speed of reloading of a pistol is relevant to the amendment. Most single-shot pistols require four or even five distinct movements to reload. The pistol must first be broken open, the spent cartridge removed, a new round picked up with the other hand and put into the breech, the breech closed and the trigger set. Only then is the pistol ready to be fired.
In competition precision shooting, it would take approximately a minute for the shooter to fire each shot. Sixty rounds in the hour is the recognised rate of fire by pistol shot in Olympic competitions.
Only about 5 per cent. of .22 pistols, and probably a smaller percentage of larger-calibre weapons, are single-shot. They are, however, useful at two ends of the sport—for the beginner, who uses a cheap gun for training, and for the expert, who has specially constructed guns for advanced competition.
On the question of convertibility from single-shot to multi-shot pistols or repeater, it was argued during the debates on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that existing multi-shot weapons could be converted to single-shot and then reconverted to multi-shot. In France, single-shot .22 pistols are subject to no controls of any kind. One can simply walk into a gun shop or even a supermarket and buy such a weapon, without any questions asked.
Many of those are revolvers which have had the revolving mechanism removed and the cylinder replaced by one with only a single chamber. Such single-shot pistols could be restored to multi-shot capacity if new parts, including a new cylinder, could be obtained, or if the single-shot cylinder were drilled out. In other cases, self-loading pistols are sold with the magazine removed and the magazine well blanked off.
The amendment takes account of that extreme scenario, as it does not permit pistols that are derived from a multi-shot design.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: 1 notice that the Minister of State is listening carefully, for which we are grateful. My hon. Friend noted that single-shot pistols are available in France. He may have noticed that I got rather a dusty answer from the Minister when I raised that point in the main debate. The Minister said:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has a total lack of faith in Customs or any controls on our borders. It is untrue to say that people can wander into this country with guns."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1242.]
Does my hon. Friend know of any regular checking of motor cars coming in, for example, at Dover, to see whether they carry a pistol?

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. The question is best put to the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise. As far as I am aware—this is based only on anecdotal

evidence—there are no such checks. The apprehension of someone importing such weapons would presumably occur by chance, and that import would merely add to the estimated 2,500 illegal weapons going into circulation in this country every week.
It must be recognised that most of the weapons about which we should be concerned in any debate about firearms are those in illegal circulation, not those that are legally held by perfectly law-abiding people taking part in a sport in which the United Kingdom is particularly successful.

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is my understanding that it is customary for the Department responsible for a Bill to ensure that priority notice questions are answered by 3.30, where they pertain to the debate in Committee on the Floor of the House that day. I have just been speaking to the Message Board staff, and I was told that the Home Office questions which I tabled—Nos. 173, 176, 181, 187, 194 and 205—have not yet even reached the Hallkeeper's Lodge, let alone the Members' Letter Board.
Can you, Sir Alan, make the necessary order to require that those questions, which were tabled at the first available opportunity, should be answered in time for this afternoon's debate? I remind the Chamber that the Home Secretary made several observations during the Second Reading debate last Wednesday, and today is the earliest opportunity to answer queries arising from those observations. I hope that those answers will be provided by 3.30 this afternoon.

The Chairman): The hon. Member will know, from his own ministerial experience, that plans sometimes can go awry. He will know also that it is not for the Chair to ensure that such things occur. However, the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am sure that they will try to oblige him if they possibly can in order to assist the proceedings of the Committee.

Mr. Colvin: To bring the debate back on course—

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Back on target.

Mr. Colvin: Indeed.
It might be worth while reminding the Committee of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the existing legislation in the aftermath of the Cullen report. He said:
We believe that a distinction needs to be made between high-calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and .22 rimfire handguns, which are largely intended for target shooting. Although Lord Cullen decided against making such a distinction, he sets out in paragraph 9.49 of his report a table that demonstrates that a .22 handgun is some four to six times less powerful than higher-calibre handguns.
In paragraph 9.44, Lord Cullen points out that the expansion in the use of high-calibre handguns has even made many shooters concerned about the use of such guns as symbols of personal power. In addition, target shooting with .22 handguns has been an Olympic sport since 1896. There will be exceptions for the very few professionals, such as vets, who need handguns outside gun clubs for the humane destruction of animals."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 832–33.]


That quotation appears in the Library's brief, "Prohibiting Handguns: the Firearms (Amendment) Bill", dated 9 June 1997, which I recommend to those participating in the debate. It is a fair, broad and detailed summary of past and present legislation in that area.
The Government propose the Bill on the basis of their manifesto commitment to ban all handguns, including .22s. In view of the emotion generated in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy and the highly successful Snowdrop campaign, one can understand why Members of Parliament on the eve of a general election took extremely seriously the points raised during the campaign. I believe that a petition was presented to No. 10 Downing street and to the then Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Labour party manifesto contains a commitment to ban all handguns, and that the present Prime Minister has backed the campaign.
However, I believe that the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself lets the Government off the hook. I do not believe that they have really thought it through, that the Government have considered seriously the impact of a ban on all .22 calibre pistols. I do not think that they have given careful thought to the possibility of excluding single-fire .22 pistols for competition shooting.
The debate has been surrounded by much emotion—I think too much. Emotion has clouded many of the speeches in this place—although a majority have opposed not only this Government's proposals but the previous Government's approach to firearms legislation. Therefore, it is important to know what we are talking about when we come to these debates.
If ever we needed a reason for retaining the Palace of Westminster Shooting Range—which is located in the bowels of the earth, where Guy Fawkes left his gunpowder in hope of blowing the place sky high—it is that.
On many occasions, I have taken Members down to the Shooting Range. Many of them had never handled a rifle or pistol before. I took them to the range to explain what the sport was all about.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind something that is sometimes forgotten by hon. Members who refer to the Shooting Range. The range is a facility of the staff's social club. It is not a provision made for the benefit of Members. In effect, the range belongs to the staff of the House, many of whom participate in its use.

Mr. Colvin: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We must not digress, but the club has a wide membership. More of its members are staff than Members or Members of the other place. Some women are members, and it is used by the police.
My remarks so far can be summed up in one phrase: disasters produce bad law. The Bill is potentially bad law.
The Government's decision to support a ban was rooted in the highly emotional atmosphere post-Dunblane and before Lord Cullen reported. The general public experienced the same initial reaction. Since then, however, public support for a ban has fallen away. Public opinion now takes a more measured judgment based on Lord Cullen's recommendations. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) certainly

put on record the evidence that stems from our post bags, which is heavily weighted by those who are opposed to the proposed legislation.
After a thorough inquiry, Lord Cullen stated in his report:
I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified.
I think that that says it all. A complete ban is a hangover from the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy. It would be unfortunate if it were introduced now, when calmer judgments prevail.
The 1997 Act has introduced draconian controls. The controls and regulations are more stringent than those that are in place anywhere else in the world. Nothing further will be gained in terms of public security by a complete ban. At the same time, retaining the Act may enable United Kingdom participation in an Olympic sport to survive. The Act should be given the chance to succeed before we go down the path that is set out in the Bill.
I do not think that there is any convincing evidence that the private and legal ownership of handguns is linked to crime. Almost everyone acknowledges that the proposed Act will do nothing to reduce the illegal ownership of guns that underpins criminal activity. To extend prohibition still further without giving time to assess whether it will have that effect would be an injustice to law-abiding people, in the absence of any compensating benefit to the public.
Participants in target shooting with handguns are a minority, but they are a minority within a very popular sport. These people are law-abiding, and cause no disturbance to others. The noise involved in the use of .22s is minimal. We are talking of some of the most security-conscious and pro-law-enforcement people.
There may be occasions when the rights of such people need to be overridden in the interests of security. At the same time, the onus is on the state to show that that is necessary. I believe that in this instance it has manifestly failed to meet that onus. Parliament's role in the defence of individual rights is never more crucial than when minority groups do not command popular and media favour.
One has also to take into account the fact that shooting is now the fastest growing participative sport in the United Kingdom. It is the second most popular sport after fishing. I should explain just what single-shot pistols do as far as competition shooting is concerned. I refer not to centrefire pistols, which, rightly, are now outlawed, but to rimfire pistols—.22 calibre pistols—which are the subject of the amendment.
Internationally and domestically, the only competition where a single-shot pistol is required is the 50 m free pistol event, a competition that is shot at Olympic, world, Commonwealth and European championships as well as at national and club level. Domestically, most .22 competitions at national and club level could be shot with .22 pistols without altering the rules, or with just a small variation in timings. Most shooting could be done with .22 single-shots—

The Chairman: Order. I have taken note of the scope of the hon. Gentleman's speech in introducing his amendment, and he seems to be straying into territory that I might have expected to be covered in the debate on new


clauses 3 and 4. If excluding the hon. Gentleman from talking about new clauses 3 and 4 might unduly constrict him, and, indeed, other hon. Members who were hoping to contribute, it might be convenient for the Committee if I were to revise my provisional selection of amendments to include these new clauses in this debate so that the discussion is not inhibited. We seem to have already covered part of the ground that I would have expected under the other debate.

Mr. Colvin: Do I take it that that is your ruling, Sir Alan, or are you offering to extend the scope of the debate to include that, because—

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a warning shot.

Mr. Colvin: Indeed.
I would far rather confine my remarks more specifically to amendment No. 7 rather than try to extend the scope of the debate. I am sure that other hon. Members, some of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment, will speak on the new clauses that you mentioned, Sir Alan. Could we discuss them later this afternoon?

The Chairman: It seems that my remarks may have found their target, so if the hon. Gentleman will speak very strictly to the terms of his amendment, my original selection can stand.

Mr. Colvin: Thank you, Sir Alan. I will confine my remarks to something that is more specific and somewhat more accurate.
In that connection, I should tell the Committee—this relates specifically to derivation from multi-shot designs to single-shot—that, in order to pass judgment on the amendment, it is important to have general information about what these pistols do, and to have some understanding of what the Olympic disciplines are.
Free pistol and rapid-fire pistol events require a very specialist pistol indeed. The free pistol is a single-shot pistol with a barrel in excess of 10 in. It has a large wooden grip that is usually made to encircle the shooter's hand. Prices of these pistols—a matter of some significance, because we may discuss compensation later on—vary quite considerably, from £750 for a single-hand free pistol to well over £1,200 for a new, top-of-the-line pistol, which would include the specialist grip.
These pistols are hardly appropriate for criminal use. They are quite impossible to get into someone's pocket, and they cannot be converted to multi-shot use. As this is the last type of weapon that any criminal would consider using to commit a crime, the national security argument falls.
To put the amendment into perspective, let us consider the number of shooters involved. The National Small-bore Rifle Association has no precise figures for participation in .22 shooting in competitions and leagues, but I believe that, in the Olympic disciplines, there are currently about 500 shooters in the country; but there are some 20,000 domestic and league shooters, and it is necessary to shoot at that level in order to be selected for international competitions.
4 pm
If all that is left is .22 pistol shooting, many centrefire shooters will convert to that type of shooting rather than give up the sport altogether. That is an important point, which has a direct bearing on the question of compensation.
It has been said many times that, following the ban on large-calibre pistols, shooters would convert to .22 pistols. Hopefully, the Government believe that, following the banning of .22 pistols, they will convert to rifles. There are not many specialist pistol clubs in the country. I believe that there are about 2,100 rifle clubs, and, according to the information that the Home Secretary gave me last week, there are 49 clubs exclusively for pistol shooters—a small percentage of the total.
The House should consider the amendment carefully. If the Government's proposal is enacted, Britain will be the only country to be banned from international pistol shooting competitions. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, passed by the last Parliament, would at least have allowed our competitors to take part on the international stage in the three .22 calibre events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
This country has a long and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting, a sport that Britain invented and has dominated for the past 100 years. It is a sporting success story for Britain. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition, our competitors have brought home 23 pistol shooting medals in the .22 calibre events alone.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the House of Commons passed this pernicious and unjust legislation, it would affect not just the people he has rightly mentioned—who have conferred great honour on their sport—but the generations to come who will hope to succeed them? They will have no opportunity to train, and Britain, which has dominated the sport for generations, will cease to play a part in it, to the great disadvantage of our sporting reputation.

Mr. Colvin: I take my hon. Friend's point. As a former Minister for the Armed Forces, he will know that, in the forces, everyone is trained to handle firearms. The draconian measures proposed by the Government to control firearms will mean that that will be the last time many of those people will handle a firearm, and all the talent that has been so successful in the past will be wasted—unless, of course, they travel abroad and train and shoot there.
A sport that is one of the original 12 Olympic disciplines deserves the same recognition as more visible sports. It should not be lightly destroyed. That is why I hope that my hon. Friends, and the Committee as a whole, will support the amendment.

Mr. Frank Cook: I begin by registering my disappointment at not having received from the Minister the responses to points made during last Monday's debate, which I was promised I would receive by today. I remind the Committee that in 1940 Winston Churchill commented that we were not only without an Army, but bereft of people who were able to bear arms. History teaches us that we should not repeat our mistakes.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that, in answer to a query from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the ability of British competitors to train for and participate in the games, he said:
I have not ruled that out altogether and if realistic representations are made to me, I shall think about the proposal. But I should require a high degree of convincing before going ahead with it."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
The simple fact is that we have not heard much cold, clinical logic in the debate, except in my contribution. I say that with suitable modesty.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): What was that word?

Mr. Cook: It is spelt m-o-d-e-s-t-y.
One of the points made with some validity by the anti-gun school of thought was that Thomas Watt Hamilton in Dunblane and Michael Ryan before him created a good deal of mayhem not because of their marksmanship and the accuracy with which the rounds were dispensed, but because the guns were multi-shot, and because Hamilton was able to reload. If the guns had not been multi-shot, the damage would not have been as horrendous.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable, sensible and realistic, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to heed its proposals with care. It refers to specialised, target weapons that are meant for no purpose other than for shooting on a range where the shooter stands 25 m to 50 m away from a piece of cardboard. They are .22 calibre and, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, they have an inordinately long barrel to give the accuracy that is required in target shooting. The stock by which they are held is complex: the hand must fit into it like a glove. They cannot be pulled out of one's pocket, and they are difficult to carry—some of them are almost as long as a billiard cue. They are highly specialised weapons.
The hon. Member for Romsey said that such weapons can cost up to £1,200. Some international competitors' weapons are worth well in excess of £3,000, because they are custom-designed and built and carry counter-weights according to the strength of the individual using them. That is not the sort of weapon that someone will pick up and use to assassinate people. As I said a few days ago, an assassin will not identify the quarry, select a vantage point, calculate the field of fire, estimate the time of arrival and when to loose off a shot, and then say, "Heavens, I cannot use this because it is a .22 and it is illegal." The whole idea is preposterous.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to keep faith with his undertaking last week to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed by considering this realistic proposal. It relates specifically to the group of people whose rights we choose to defend—the high-grade competitors. The measure would be a stop-gap, because it would cater only for the needs of those who are accustomed to competing. It would be exceedingly difficult for young competitors, or even old ones who are just entering the sport, to gain some recognition, because they would find it difficult to acquire the kind of weapons that we are debating. The amendment would enable competitors with an international reputation and who

strike fear into only one class of people—those who compete for other nations—to stop those of other nationalities from gaining the prestigious awards that our people are capable of winning.
Once again, I appeal to the Home Secretary to appreciate the realistic nature of the proposal. I urge him to concede even at this late stage that the amendment is reasonable and rational; it threatens no one and would preserve a corner of this sport for this country.

Mr. Soames: I warmly endorse the words of the hon. Member for Stockton. North (Mr. Cook), whose stand on this matter the Committee should admire and respect. I especially endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). Perhaps the Home Secretary will detail his reasons for not accepting this simple change. I fear that his reasons will be unsatisfactory, not least because they will be advanced by officials on the ground that they were not invented here. The amendment is a sensible, careful, deliberate, pragmatic attempt to allow Great Britain to remain in her rightful place at the summit of an important sport.
Many years ago, some of us gave up trying to make Labour appreciate anything to do with the countryside or the importance of the cadet forces and their right to learn to bear arms and train under the most rigorous and strict conditions, in which safety and skill at arms play an important part. We know that the Home Secretary does not have a clue about that, that he does not understand it and that it means nothing to him.
Britain's shooting sports play a significant part in the life of the broad shooting community. It is quite wrong for pistol shooters to be marked out in this way. Even our sensible and realistic attempt to enable Britain to continue to compete and train people is not to be granted. These people are not madmen who have been granted gun licences simply because one police force failed to do its duty. They will be for ever denied the right to continue to take part in an honourable sport, which they love and which is part of the fabric of this country.
The Labour party cannot go round just banning things arbitrarily; I understand that a fox hunting Bill is to come before the House. There are endless examples of a high-handed, ignorant approach to such matters, and Conservative Members beg the Home Secretary to consider carefully what justice there is, what point there is in sacrificing something that many people do so well and which gives them such responsibility and respect.

Mr. Colvin: The Committee must understand, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with this, that sacrifices are already being made by competition pistol shooters. The rapid-fire pistol competition for the Olympics has already been sacrificed—I do not think that anyone in his wildest dreams is going to try to make the case for retaining that—as has the Olympic sport pistol event for ladies, which involves an automatic .22 pistol, so two out of three .22 events are already being sacrificed to the dogma of the Labour party. We want to try to preserve only the last remaining one—the single-shot event.

Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful to him for pointing that out so powerfully.
In my constituency, I am a keen shooter, and a number of gun clubs are deeply unhappy at what the Home Secretary is doing. Many Conservative Members had to swallow hard to support what my old Government did in going further than Cullen, but we did swallow it. However, this is a step too far and I beg the Home Secretary to consider with great care whether it is really worth while, having gone the distance already, to lock out from international sport something that confers great honour on this country's sporting achievement.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I support the amendment, so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), and the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and—until he mentioned fox hunting—of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). I wonder whether the Labour party has completely lost sight of the original causes of the desire, which was felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to control the use of handguns. The massacre at Dunblane could not have been carried out with a single-shot .22 pistol—if such a massacre had been started using such a weapon, the murderer could have been stopped and overpowered. When the Labour party opposed our more modest measure, its rhetoric was that it wanted to stop Dunblane happening again so far as it was able to do so. Even Labour Members admitted that no measure was absolutely going to guarantee that there would not be another massacre.
It is odd, therefore, that the Labour party has not taken that logic into account in proposing its total ban. The extremely small concession that is being sought through the amendment—and it is extremely small—would make it possible to prevent, as far as it is possible ever to prevent, the sort of thing that happened at Dunblane. It would give the public much greater protection and, at the same time, preserve, to a very limited extent, but at least to some extent, a perfectly legitimate sport, which is not only for entertainment, but which tests ability, which maintains our international reputation and which does no harm when lawfully and responsibly practised.
The inclusion of the words:
and is not derived from a multi-shot design
obviates the only real practical objection to the amendment, which is that it could be open to abuse. I cannot envisage someone going to such lengths as having a gun converted and then reconverted deliberately to evade the law. If such a person were wholly intent on evading the law, there would be no difficulty in his doing so illegally, rather than going to great lengths to get round a legal provision.
The amendment asks for only a small concession, but it would bring modest comfort to those who practise a perfectly legitimate sport. The Government's line is authoritarian, similar to their line in many of their other dealings since they came to power. They appear to take no account of law-abiding minorities. They certainly seem to take no account of public opinion, which has substantially shifted since the initial horror of Dunblane.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider accepting the amendment, even at this late hour. If he will not, will he explain to the Committee what on earth could be the

danger of creating another Dunblane or Hungerford with a single-shot .22 weapon that cannot be derived from a multi-shot design? The amendment is so very carefully restricted and prescribed that I cannot imagine that any of the dangers that we are seeking to prevent would arise. I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has, extremely succinctly, posed the key question in the debate, so I shall try not to labour it too much, but rather enhance it a little.
The Home Secretary has been perfectly straightforward in saying that he does not wish to interfere with the rights of minorities further than is necessary in the interests of public safety. We are conscious that we cannot win the votes. However, we can put forward arguments which—and I put this in a non-contentious way—we can share with the Government and hope to persuade them to accept. The amendments that have been tabled contain arguments that deserve the most careful consideration. I believe that the Government could feel able to accept them and so avoid the victory to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred—of which I am happy to acquit the Home Secretary, but which is a danger from some of those who sit behind him. I hope that he will not think that over-offensive to his party; I believe that it is a genuine danger.
The principle that we are discussing focuses on the question of the single-shot handgun. We have to be careful not to pick around in Lord Cullen's report. Indeed, one could argue almost anything from the report. I think that there was some support for that view in the winding-up arguments on Second Reading.
The single-shot pistol, which cannot be mechanically changed to become a multi-shot pistol, and which is used for highly specialised competitions, is about as unsuitable for use in a massacre as anything that one could devise. The question—and I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister will focus on this—is not whether a single-shot pistol is lethal, as any pistol, shotgun or rifle is lethal; it is whether there is sufficient danger to the public in permitting the use of single-shot pistols under confined circumstances that they must be banned together with all other pistols.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who tabled amendment No. 7 in a manner that has been carefully argued and proposed by the British Shooting Sports Council and those involved in Olympic and Commonwealth sports—made the case for allowing an exemption for the weapons that we are debating under the amendment. I appreciate, however, that Ministers may wish to consider more carefully one aspect of the amendment, which would allow single-shot pistols to be kept at home.
There is an argument for saying that such weapons should be confined to clubs, although Lord Cullen's report—which I mentioned earlier in my speech—states that keeping weapons in clubs will not provide absolute security. In this debate, however, we are not questioning whether we can provide absolute security, but considering how to strike a balance. Ministers would be doing everything that they could reasonably be expected to do in


providing for public safety—I believe that they are going further than is necessary, but in this debate, we are focusing on a specific aspect of the issue—even if they were to permit use of single-shot pistols for purposes of competition and training before competition.
As my hon. Friends have already eloquently stated, many Olympic and Commonwealth competitions depend on the use of some type of pistol, and those competitions would be facilitated by allowing the use of specialised single-shot pistols. If we passed the amendment, at least .22 calibre competitions could continue, and that is a highly desirable objective. The Government should allow those competitions to continue.
In urging a balance of argument on the issue, I revert to the point about the ease with which such pistols can be brought into the United Kingdom, because we should not blind ourselves to that part of the argument. Conservative Members are urging that British citizens who are properly licensed and in very closely confined conditions should be able to hold and use specialised single-shot pistols.
The fact remains, however, that .22 single-shot pistols—which are not particularly suitable for competitions, but perfectly capable of killing people—can be bought across the counter in France. Anyone can drive in and out of the United Kingdom—whether at Dover, Folkestone, Le Havre or Portsmouth—on any of the ordinary sea ferries with such weapons.
It is no criticism of customs officers—I ask the Minister to prick up his ears—to say that they do not go through cars with a fine-toothed comb. Customs officers allow ordinary English citizens to pass through with nothing more than what was once described as a "Bangemann wave" of a passport. Consequently, if an evil-minded loner were minded to use a .22 pistol—which is unlikely; he would be much more likely to go for one of the many thousands of illegally held heavy-calibre pistols—he could bring it into the United Kingdom with absolute impunity and virtually no prospect of being caught.
There is a strong argument in principle for passing the amendment, and no significant danger to the public in practice. Conservative Members very much hope that Ministers will sympathetically examine the aspect of the issue dealt with in the amendment.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I should like to reinforce some of the comments made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I should also like to draw attention to the specific consequences for the Olympic movement if the Bill is passed without amendment No. 7.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) rightly talked about the great significance of shooting in the Olympics. Today, however—like many other hon. Members—I received a letter from Mr. Simon Clegg, the general secretary of the British Olympic Association. It states:
Whilst the British Olympic Association welcomes tighter firearms control which will ensure that tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane are never repeated we are concerned about the impact that the proposed legislation will have on competitive pistol shooting in this country.
The legislation, as it stands, will effectively preclude representation by British athletes at future Olympic Games in the three Olympic shooting disciplines concerned. With 135 national federations competing for 20–30 places in each discipline there is a significant level of training and commitment necessary to achieve

an Olympic quota place. Forcing competitive pistol shooting abroad will kill the sport and with it the necessary depth to ensure international representation at the highest level 
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) rightly stressed the distinguished record of British competitors.
The amendment—

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution and feel that he is debating new clause 3 or 4, not amendment No. 7.

The Chairman: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been here for the whole debate. I have already tried to gauge the mood of the Committee on this particular matter. My provisional selection separated the two debates, but there appeared to be some element of overlap. I have tried to be as tolerant as I can, but I stress again that if it is convenient to have a separate debate on new clauses 3 and 4, we have to confine this debate as tightly as possible to amendment No. 7.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Sir Alan. Of course, I have been present for the whole debate and heard what you said earlier. I am seeking to reflect not only earlier contributions about the sporting significance of the legislation, but the fact that the amendment is designed to enable competition to continue.
The Government have to consider carefully the mischief that they are trying to prevent. If the mischief that they are trying to prevent is the repetition of what happened at Hungerford or Dunblane, they must reflect on whether it is necessary to ban single-shot weapons. There is a serious problem if the legislation does not in fact prevent the repetition of similar tragedies, but succeeds only in preventing sporting competition for many law-abiding citizens who present no real risk.
I draw the Government's attention to what the press has said. Last October, The Sunday Times said:
We believe the argument for permitting sporting use of .22 handguns is a strong one".
This is an extremely important matter in terms of the rights of the minority of citizens who enjoy their sport. Even at this very late stage, it is perfectly possible for the Government to reconsider and decide that in this case the balance comes down in favour of permitting single-shot handguns because they do not pose the same kind of threat. That would enable participants in sport to enjoy their pleasure.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is proper for me to declare an interest at the start of the proceedings. I am a consultant to the British Field Sports Society, but I make it clear that the use of handguns has a very limited application in country sports. Nevertheless, the British Field Sports Society is a member of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella body representing those using handguns for target shooting.
It is the job of the House to look after the interests of minorities and I believe that the amendment will help to safeguard the interests of a small but nevertheless significant and law-abiding minority—those who practise target shooting to a high level of skill. All sorts of things


are said during election campaigns and the parading of the Snowdrop petition at the Labour party conference was, no doubt, seen as a useful political stunt, although some of us found the sentimentality surrounsding it a little sickening. I suppose that the Labour party thought that "Ban all handguns" was a nice, simple message, but that "Ban all handguns except .22 single-shot handguns" would be off message and would therefore fall foul of its spin doctors.
I urge the Government to reconsider their position. The Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the extension of the prohibition of handguns to .22s was to prevent another Dunblane, but how will the Government's refusal to accept our amendment do anything to prevent another Dunblane?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, single-shot target pistols are singular weapons. Some time ago, I was shown one by a practitioner of the sport and it was a revelation to me. Like many people, I thought that a .22 handgun was a small weapon that could be easily concealed, but in fact the weapon is almost 18 in long—I am told that, if the barrel were a few millimetres longer, it would be categorised as a rifle. It is virtually impossible to hide such a weapon with any part of one's body. The other significant feature of the weapons is the way in which the stock is designed. The stock goes almost around the wrist so that, in a sense, the gun almost becomes part of the hand. The weapon that I saw has an electronic trigger—it is a highly sophisticated weapon—and the loading procedure is extremely complicated and slow. I am told that in Olympic contests the rate of fire is a maximum of 60 rounds in a two-hour period, which shows how slow and difficult loading those weapons is.
It is nonsense to suggest that someone like Thomas Hamilton would have used such a weapon, but if he had done so, he would have had to have gone into the school at Dunblane with the weapon practically attached to his wrist and with cartridges in his pocket, in which he would have had to scratch around in order to load the weapon between shots. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it would have been a slow process and he could have been easily overpowered at that point.
We are asking the Government to reconsider and to accept the amendment, which is especially important because it would allow the tradition of Olympic shooting to continue. We now spend millions of pounds of lottery money encouraging participation in sport and we want to do better in international team events. It is therefore perverse that we are going to destroy our ability to participate in one of the oldest Olympic disciplines. As those who read the Sunday newspapers will know, we are forcing people from gun clubs as far north as Aberdeen to go to France to practise. That is fine if one can afford the air fare and the time to go to Dieppe, where I understand some British shooters have registered at a local club, but it is nonsense to force people to do that to practise a skill and a sport that they love. It is illogical for our shooters to have to train with the French—I fear that the Duke of Wellington would be spinning in his grave if he knew.
The sport of shooting single-shot .22 pistols is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey said, the crème de la crème of the shooting disciplines and we should be able to continue to participate in it. I therefore urge the Government to consider the amendment carefully. It would not be a loss of face for the Government to move away from the position that they hold with almost dogmatic fervour. We have moved sufficiently far away from the tragedy of Dunblane to re-examine the issue in the cold light of day. I should welcome it if we could persuade the Government to row back on their absolute prohibition and allow this valuable sporting discipline to continue.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have come a long way from the position in law when the extremely tragic events of Dunblane took place. The previous Government's Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 outlawed high-calibre pistols. It did not take into account the recommendations contained in Lord Cullen's extremely detailed inquiry that high-calibre and much more dangerous pistols than those mentioned in the amendment should be banned, not only from people's private homes where they had previously been allowed, but from gun clubs. Some of us had strong views on Lord Cullen's recommendations and the amendments to the law proposed in the previous Act.
However, the Bill goes significantly further than the previous legislation. Under the current law, anyone may possess .22 pistols in his home if he has a firearms certificate. He does not have to hold them in a gun club or use them under supervision, but can use them provided that he has a firearms certificate. Without banning .22 rimfire pistols, we could perfectly reasonably ensure that they had to be held in a gun club—which would have to be properly licensed by the police—and used under proper supervision. We could ensure that someone could hold only one competition pistol. Such measures would enormously reduce the balance of risk.
Will the Minister of State tell us how many fatalities and how many serious injuries are caused by the relatively safe .22 rimfire single-shot pistols? I believe that the number of fatalities is incredibly small—I doubt whether there are more than a few every year. We should be making better use of our time if we considered that fact in the context of the fatalities caused by illegally held firearms and the part that they play in armed crime.
However, we have been placed on this ground by the Government through their introduction of the Bill. I appeal to the Minister of State to think carefully about the lethality of the guns under discussion. During the course of the previous Firearms (Amendment) Bill I entertained a senior police officer to lunch in the House. Our conversation turned to the lethality of such guns. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "I would rather that any of my officers were faced at short range by a high-calibre pistol—not just a .22 pistol—than by a double-barrelled shotgun." Everyone knows that, at short range, a double-barrelled shotgun puts a big hole through a body. A .22 pistol makes a hole of about a quarter of an inch and, unless the bullet happens to hit a vital vessel in the body, it will not kill.

Mr. Soames: I hope that my hon. Friend will not proceed too far down this road, otherwise we shall find the Labour party banning shotguns.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The thought had occurred to me, but we must put the issues in context and speak out about the realities of life. The Bill's approach to the balance of risk is nonsense.
How many illegal weapons will be driven underground by the measure? We had that argument during our discussion of the previous Firearms (Amendment) Bill. My guess is that the weapons will flood in from the continent. It will not matter how well firearms are supervised, people will still want to use weapons illegally. Now we have banned high-calibre pistols, it would be far better to encourage this country's law-abiding citizens to switch to relatively low-risk weapons. In that way, those people could continue to enjoy themselves; they would be listed on proper police registers and their weapons would be kept on firearms certificates instead of being driven underground.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, if the legislation is passed, those who legally own guns will be forced to hold the guns illegally in a subversive way? Where would they use the guns? Why would somebody who currently holds a legitimate gun licence and a .22 pistol for target and competition shooting want to hold that gun illegally? Where would he use it?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not live in the real world. If he considered what was happening in the United States and the number of illegally held firearms there, he would know that what I am saying is true. An element in this country would want to use the firearms illegally. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would deplore that, but we must acknowledge the realities of life.
I appeal to the Minister of State on two grounds. First, on the balance of risk, how lethal are those weapons? Secondly, what is the point of setting up a specialist inquiry only to have politicians second-guess its recommendations? How many more of the numerous inquiries that the Government are setting up will subsequently be second-guessed and their recommendations not accepted? We might as well choose a lord and tell him not to carry out an in-depth inquiry or take all the evidence, but to put a few points on the back of a fag packet: if we like the recommendations, we shall accept them and turn them into law; if we do not like them, we shall not accept them. That seems to be what is happening in the Bill.

Mr. Frank Cook: I should like to clarify a point that was raised a couple of minutes ago by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He asked whom the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had in mind when he said that someone holding a legal firearms certificate now would want to go underground with his weapon. That will not happen: such a person is a law-abiding custodian of a firearm. The hon. Gentleman misses the point about the danger involved. Many people on the streets already illegally own the weapons to which he refers—they are not necessarily target weapons, but are multi-shot, small weapons that they can carry. The legislation will not touch such people. That is the point.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention as it gives me the

chance to clarify my remarks. If owning such a weapon remains legal, everyone who wishes to fire pistols in competitions and to keep weapons in a registered firearms armoury has the opportunity to do so. If the Bill makes that illegal, people will no longer have that opportunity. I can foresee circumstances—which will probably not involve current firearms certificate holders—in which some people, possibly younger people, will want to fire pistols illegally and will obtain their weapons on the black market.
I ask the Minister of State to consider what he is doing today and to see whether it would be possible, in the closely defined circumstances that I have described—using only one weapon in a registered gun club under proper supervision with a proper firearms licence from the police—to accept the amendment, even if it has to be redrawn

Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall ask the Government three short questions, in the hope of bringing them round to a different way of thinking.
I trust that the Government have listened with care, not only to Conservative Members of Parliament, who have spoken with knowledge and passionate interest in the matter, but to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is a consistent advocate of the arguments that he advanced this afternoon. I ask the Government to listen to him with all humility, because he has nothing to gain politically from what he says, and so can argue with the force of principle. I salute him for the stance that he has taken tonight and at other times. His arguments bear listening to. I hope that, by pointing him out, I have done him no damage.
I confess that, on Second Reading of the Conservative Government's Firearms (Amendment) Bill in November 1996, I refused to support the Government and absented myself so as not to support the Bill. I trust that my remarks will be viewed in that light—I say that breathing down the neck of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary.
First, I shall ask questions about the philosophy that underlies the Bill, clause 1 and the Government's opposition to amendment No. 7. I hope that I am not too pompous in describing it in those terms. Is it right that the Government's proposal should become law? We have been told about the innocent pastime of competition shooters. There is a shooting club in my constituency, in Kibworth, halfway between Market Harborough and Leicester. As a direct consequence of the Bill, members of that club will see an end to a pastime in which they have engaged for many years. Not one member of the club is the type of person who is likely to commit mayhem by running amok with a pistol—let alone a single-shot pistol, which the amendment is designed to retain in the sport of shooting.
The membership of clubs such as the one in my constituency is broadly composed of policemen, former policemen and ex-warrant officers from the armed forces—not the type of war comic strip cartoon heroes whom one would expect to run amok with a gun. It is important for the Government to realise that they are taking away from people in that respectable section of society a lawful pastime in which they have engaged innocently for very many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) mentioned organisations such as the cadet forces. I believe that the type of people who, were the Bill


not to become law in the currently proposed form, would have joined, for example, the Kibworth shooting club, would have undergone weapons training in the cadet force even if they did not later join the Regular armed forces. I urge the Government to bear in mind what they are doing and whom they are harming.

Mr. Soames: My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point about safety. Does he agree—the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), does not have a clue about this—that, regardless of whether their members have been cadets or members of the armed forces, all those clubs adopt the highest, most rigorous standards of safety in the handling of weapons and ammunition that one could find anywhere, and that that sets the sport apart from almost any other sport that one may watch in this country?

Mr. Garnier: I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend. I know that from my experience, having visited the club in my constituency. I was told several times by the president, the captain, the secretary, the treasurer and other members of the committee of that club the precise and detailed training and arms drill that all members of that club must undergo before they are even allowed on to the range, let alone allowed to handle a gun with a potentially lethal projectile in it.

Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to observe that they must behave in that manner and with that type of discipline because it is the only level of safety that they can apply to themselves, so it is in their own interest. The whole sport is one of imposing, inculcating, fostering and improving safety standards.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I wish that the Government would give credit to those people and allow them to use single-shot guns safely. As has been explained several times, a single-shot gun is not the weapon that a maniac will choose if he wants to kill huge numbers of people.
The second broad question that I want to ask the Government is a question of practice. Will the Bill—and clause 1, which we seek to amend—achieve the intended purpose of preventing the Dunblanes and the Hungerfords? The short answer is, "No, of course it will not." The Government know that it will not but, unfortunately yet understandably, they have become bound up in the emotion that flowed from the terrible events at Dunblane.
No one would seek to diminish, devalue or denigrate the sincerity of the concern expressed by Ministers and supporters of the Government—and Opposition Members—for the parents and relations of the children who were brutally killed by that madman in Dunblane last summer. However, having studied the Cullen report, having considered the facts of that case, we now know the reasons why Hamilton committed those murders and, regrettably, a repeat of that situation would not be dealt with by this, albeit well-intentioned, clause.
There were huge numbers of failures, by the police and by the licensing authorities, regarding the culprit in that case. Regrettably, the Bill produced by the Government

will have no effect on a future Dunblane. It may make the Government feel better, it may make other members of the public who support the general thrust of the Bill feel better, but it will not afford the children of equivalent primary schools throughout the United Kingdom, and parents of those children, any better protection. I suggest to the Committee, therefore, that the Bill and clause 1 will not achieve the intended purpose.
My final argument to the Government is encapsulated in the question, "Will the clause cause harm?" I hope that I have argued successfully that it will do no good, but will it cause harm? That comes back—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he appears to have moved on to making a speech that would be more suited to the clause stand part debate. I would remind him that we are debating the specific points made in amendment No. 7.

Mr. Garnier: I understand, Sir Alan, the feeling that you have about the half-completed sentence that I was uttering, but if I complete the sentence, I hope that I may persuade you that I am in order. I do not wish to be impertinent, but those of us who support the amendment are arguing for the retention within the law of single-shot .22 weapons, and I am asking the Government to justify the removal of single-shot .22 pistols from lawful ownership in certain prescribed situations.
It seems to me—I hope that the Government will answer this in due course—that the question, "Will the Bill, and will this clause, cause harm?" can be answered only in the affirmative unless the clause is amended by means of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
I mentioned at the outset of my remarks the innocent, law-abiding, responsible gun owners who are about to see a long-practised pastime brought to an end if the Bill passes as the Government propose. That is a harm that the Government should not allow. It is a harm that cannot be compensated for even in money—and no doubt we shall have further discussions later in the Bill's passage about the level of compensation. I would suggest that, on all three of the grounds that I have presented, amendment No. 7 should be considered quietly and calmly by the Government, because I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational response to the points that I have put forward.
I urge the Government, despite their huge majority, to think a little more calmly and carefully about the effects of what they are doing, and to ask themselves, "Is it right? Will it do good or harm?" I believe that, if they think about those questions, they can reach only one answer in line with their responsibilities as the Government of the whole country, not just of some of its people. If they do that, there is only one conclusion to which they can come which will be in line with their responsibilities as the Government of the whole of this country, not just part of it.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I was happy to hear on Second Reading the Government's assurances that this matter would be considered on its merits. At one point in that debate, when I suggested that there was a philosophical divide between our party and the Government, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) stood up and assured me that there was no question of adopting a high moral stance: it was a question of examining the issues in a practical way.
Similarly, this moderate and well-reasoned amendment should be considered on the basis of its practical effects. I should be interested to hear the Minister of State explain in due course how the clause can be said to contribute to the safety of anyone, bearing it in mind that those who wish to act unlawfully and violently will still find ways of laying their hands on the necessary instruments.
5 pm
Accepting the amendment, on the other hand, would demonstrate Ministers' recognition of the fact that in certain strictly controlled circumstances it should still be possible to conduct a lawful sport. I therefore hope to hear that the Government are prepared to acknowledge that and to consider this practical issue on its merits.
I have heard it said during the debate that if all .22 weapons were banned, people would still act illegally. It is often maintained in the House that anyone who advances such an argument is condoning illegality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who try to lead law-abiding lives must often obey laws that we think may be wrong. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear me say this, but I am sure he can remember times when he was in opposition when he told the House that certain measures introduced by the Conservative Government were wrong because they risked criminalising otherwise law-abiding people. That, surely, is the point.
The clause reduces the risks to such an absurdly low level—here I agree with everything the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said—that those who regard the legislation as crass and idiotic will continue to practise their sport in the quarry behind the village. Such people will still be able to purchase .22 single-shot pistols on the black market. Such is the corrupting influence of badly thought out legislation, which criminalises a practice that ought to be kept lawful.
I for one have always maintained that if a law is passed people must obey it; but we should also consider the consequences of passing the law in the first place. This law will bring about corruption. Some people—not those who currently hold licences—will continue to use these weapons for recreational purposes. They will then be rightly prosecuted and criminalised.

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman was not here when the previous legislation was debated, but I wonder whether he would have used the same argument—that multi-shot weapons should not be banned because of the certainty that some people would get hold of them illegally and fire them off in quarries behind their homes. On the hon. Gentleman's logic, it was surely wrong to interfere with handgun possession of any kind.

Mr. Grieve: That is a perfectly fair point. Had I been here before the election I would have supported Lord Cullen's proposals in toto, but I would have voted against the proposals that came before the House. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and repeat my point about absurdity. My impression is that those who are likely to handle .22 pistols of the single-shot variety will do so exclusively for sporting purposes, not for pernicious Rambo-like reasons. If those people think the law absurd, they will continue to practise their sport—that is the corrupting element. It is what the House, when considering legislation, should try to avoid.
I note that the Home Secretary has returned to his place. Two onerous aspects of the job of Home Office Ministers are balancing common sense against the desires of their Back Benchers, and protecting those who would otherwise be oppressed. This evening I hope to hear some good news from the Government, but my hopes are not high. Meanwhile I suggest that it is irrational to object to the amendment.

Mr. Chope: I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously. It is an acid test of their attitude to liberty and the freedom of the individual.
Are the Government trying to accommodate, as far as possible, the legitimate interests of law-abiding sportsmen within the need for public safety, or are they using public safety as a catch-all justification for an absolutist, populist approach which appeals to the worst elements of the ignorant among our citizens? We know that 80 per cent. of all handguns are already banned. Paragraph 9.101 of the Cullen report says that single-shot pistols probably comprise about 5 per cent. of the total number of licensed weapons. So even with the amendment in place, 95 per cent. of all handguns would be banned.
The issue is one of assessing the risk. That should involve an examination of two elements in combination: as Cullen said, the chances of harm occurring, and the nature and extent of that harm.
I am rather alarmed by the Government's emerging attitude. Earlier today, I was waiting for an answer to a written question that I needed at 3.30 pm. I got the answer sooner rather than later as a direct result of the Home Secretary's intervention. I believe that answers are delivered by Departments to the House as early as 3.15 pm; the Home Secretary had confirmation from the Department that the answers were delivered here by that time today, but they did not reach the board until after 4.20 pm. Had it not been for the good offices of the Home Secretary, who had his staff fax copies of my answer to me—for which I am grateful—I would not have had access to it until that time.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the fact that we made arrangements to have his answers faxed to him by the target time. I would gently remind him, however, that some of us who asked the former Government questions over the past 10 years often did not receive our answers until the following day—never mind 3.30 pm.

Mr. Chope: I am not sure whether two wrongs make a right, but I must make it clear that I can take no responsibility for anything that happened during the last Parliament. One aspect of this matter that has been raised with me is that up to 10 staff in the Messengers Office used to deal with questions and correspondence when they arrived in the afternoon. There are now only two members of staff, which may be one explanation why answers now take much longer to reach Members.
In written question 194, I asked the Home Secretary whether it was his policy to outlaw the possession and use of black powder pistols. The Minister of State answered that black powder pistols were
synonymous with a muzzle-loading gun as defined in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government have no plans at present to prohibit the possession of such weapons. The Firearms


(Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which is presently before Parliament, deals only with the prohibition of small-calibre pistols. However, we shall keep under close review all controls on firearms to ensure maximum public safety.
I find the expression "maximum public safety" difficult because to ensure maximum public safety the Government would have to ban all shotguns and rifles, the sport of motor racing and air displays. It is impossible to ensure maximum public safety. What can be ensured is maximum public safety commensurate with individual liberty. I am sorry that the Minister of State did not respond in that way.

Mr. Michael: I am sorry that it is necessary to spell things out in such detail. I should have thought maximum safety clearly means maximum practical safety and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
There is no suggestion of widening the scope of the discussion. We were dealing with the fact that the police raised concerns about the availability of black powder pistols. That exclusion was introduced to the 1997 Act during its passage through Parliament—I believe that that amendment was introduced in another place. The police are concerned about the loophole, so it is right that we should keep it under review. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should not keep safety under review?

Mr. Chope: I make no such suggestion. I had the opportunity during the last Parliament to serve on the Health and Safety Commission, a body committed to ensuring public safety as far as reasonably practicable. In the light of the Minister of State's intervention, perhaps I should table a pursuant question to ensure that we get on the record the fact that he did not intend "ensure maximum public safety" to mean anything other than to ensure maximum practical public safety. Those are two separate propositions. The Minister of State must be deemed to have had responsibility for his answers to those questions. He decided not to qualify the answer in its written form, but I welcome the qualification that he has just given.
As for single-shot muzzle-loading guns, I have information from the Christchurch gun club in my constituency, which has 500 members and is one of the most successful gun clubs in the country, that someone firing a black powder pistol at a 25 yd range has half an hour in which to make 13 shots and the three worst shots are disallowed. That is another example of pistol shooting where tremendously high skill is involved. It is akin to the sport of pistol shooting with a single-shot pistol. That is why I hope the Government will take the amendment seriously.
The Government have already earned among some people a reputation for being a little spoilsport. They have an opportunity this afternoon to accept the amendment and demonstrate that they are willing to accommodate the legitimate interests of the sporting fraternity. I therefore hope that they accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael Howard: My right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken in support of the amendment with notable moderation. The arguments that they have advanced deserve to be treated with proper respect and I hope that they will receive such a response from the Minister of State.
I hope that the Minister of State will take particular note of the tributes paid to the standards of safety observed in gun clubs. The mischief of the problem that we have been debating arises out of the fact that the Government now propose entirely to ban pistol shooting, particularly in gun clubs. During the passage of the earlier legislation, the Front Benches agreed that handguns should be banned from the home. That agreement, however, was reached and abided by in the context in which the ban was embodied in quite different legislation. That legislation enabled Olympic shooting to continue and .22 calibre pistol shooting, both single and multi-shot, to continue in gun clubs—not in people's homes. The Bill would put an end to pistol shooting in gun clubs, which is why the matter now needs to be reconsidered.
The effect on single-shot .22 calibre pistols is one of the most conspicuous and unfortunate consequences of the Bill. The force that lies behind the arguments that have been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—I am sorry, I should have mentioned him earlier when I referred to the cogency of contributions to this debate—derives entirely from the difference in the context of this legislation.
5.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I will not resile from our earlier position that there should be a complete ban on the possession and use of pistols in the home. For that reason, and because the amendment would appear to allow pistols to be kept in the home, we shall not vote for it. Nevertheless, the arguments that have been put forward in this different context have considerable force and I hope that they will be treated in that way by the Minister of State when he replies.

Mr. Michael: I am pleased to confirm that we ensured that answers to questions were provided properly this afternoon and we shall seek to continue to do that. I mention that to reinforce the point that I made in interventions. I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) an apology. I promised to provide him with a reply by today, but my reply has been delayed because I wanted it to be fuller and more accurate. He was right to say that I failed to achieve what I sought to do, but he will have that answer as quickly as possible.
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his helpful comments. I am happy to follow him in paying tribute to the standards of safety operated in the generality of gun clubs and by the generality of shooters. A number of Conservative Members showed a good deal less respect for shooters in suggesting that, on the passage of this Bill, they will immediately go underground or use guns elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made no such suggestion. Those suggestions were unhelpful and misleading because, in general, shooters are law-abiding citizens who, while they would not wish us to pass this legislation, will obey it once it becomes law.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Michael: I shall give way first to one of those who appeared to make just such an implication.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Minister agree that if it were possible to provide a legitimate and lawful way for the


sport of shooting with handguns to be maintained, if only with single-shot handguns for those wishing to engage in the sport recreationally, that would minimise the risk that people might act illegally in using handguns for recreational purposes?

Mr. Michael: I shall return to the point. We considered carefully whether it would be possible to protect the activities of shooters and members of gun clubs and, after examining Lord Cullen's report and the evidence presented to him, we came to the conclusion that it would not. Furthermore, the amendment would entail an unacceptable degree of inconsistency.

Mr. Frank Cook: Being a simple fellow, I always try to see things clearly. Is the Minister saying that evidence given to Cullen was inaccurate, or that Lord Cullen's recommendations were misleading? The comments that have just been made confuse me.

Mr. Michael: That goes a little wider than the debate, but it is clear that Lord Cullen's findings were based sincerely on the evidence that he heard during the inquiry. Many people gave a great deal of thought to the matter and we came to the conclusion, as did the representatives of police officers, that a complete ban on handguns was the right way forward.
That in no way denigrates Lord Cullen or his inquiry, or suggests that his findings were misleading. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the House, led by the Government, to reach conclusions. It is fair to say that when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was Home Secretary, he came to conclusions that went beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations. That was the exercise of proper judgment on the report and the evidence that was provided to the inquiry.
Several of the contributions to the debate require comment. The shadow Home Secretary said that the Bill would mean the end of pistol shooting in gun clubs. That was extensively debated on Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that we should consider the chances of harm. However, we must also consider consistency and the ease of enforcement of legislation, which is what led chief police officers to express alarm at the idea that there would be only a limited ban on some handguns, rather than a consistent ban on handguns as a whole.
I appreciate that many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate disagree with the Bill as a whole. Some of the points that were made were Second Reading points, albeit addressed to the amendment. I do not think that a case has been made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) or other speakers, for single-shot small-calibre pistols to be exempted from the general prohibition on handguns. That, of course, is what the debate is about. I want to make it clear that we are not prepared to allow such an exemption.

Mr. Howard: The Minister referred—I may have misunderstood his reference—to the spokesman for chief police officers and the concerns that they had raised. In fact, the position of the Association of Chief Police Officers was as I set it out in my speech on Second Reading last week. ACPO supported the proposals of the previous Government. I know that certain other police

associations took a different view, but the chief police officers supported not a total ban, but the position taken and enshrined in legislation by the previous Government.

Mr. Michael: Both the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation formally welcomed the stance that we took. The discussions that I have had with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in recent weeks have focused more on remaining loopholes than on concern about our proposals. That has come clearly—

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes. I am referring to the conversations and discussions that have informed our preparation for these debates and the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I know nothing of private conversations or discussions that the Minister may have had. ACPO placed its view firmly on the record. I referred to that view in the debate last week. It was not challenged at the time, either by the hon. Gentleman or by the Home Secretary. It is firmly on the record. ACPO's on-the-record position, as set out by me in the debate last week, is in support of the legislation put on the statute book by the previous Government.

Mr. Michael: The Police Federation considered our proposals a victory for common sense. I say again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the comments that I have received from ACPO have been entirely about remaining loopholes—for instance, the one involving black powder guns to which I referred earlier. ACPO is anxious that there should be no loopholes in the availability of handguns. Our position is clear. Perhaps matters have moved on since the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced his Bill.

Mr. Chope: Does the Minister think that it is the responsibility of the police to decide the law of this country, or will he, on behalf of the Government, accept responsibility for deciding the law?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman did not raise that point when the shadow Home Secretary was quoting the Police Federation in support of anything that he did. It is reasonable for Members on either side to quote the views of police officers, particularly the representative bodies, when legislation which has implications for the police—in relation to enforcement or to their safety, as well as public safety—is under consideration in the House.
We have concluded that it was neither practical nor safe to allow the exemption suggested in the amendment. That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whose contribution was thoughtful and considered until she accused the Government of being authoritarian. We are trying to ensure consistency to bring about the protection of the public.
The number of small-calibre pistols in current ownership is small—perhaps only several hundred—but an exemption would mean an increase in that number.


In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, I say that it could well mean an increase in the number of single-shot pistols of a quite different type from the specialist guns to which several hon. Members referred in the debate.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: As I recall, several Conservative Members pressed the Minister to explain how he thinks that not accepting the amendment would prevent another tragedy similar to that at Dunblane. So far, the only answer that he has given is about consistency. When we are dealing with the individual liberties of law-abiding citizens, surely we need a better excuse than that.

Mr. Michael: I am sorry—I was not addressing that point, and I am not sure that that is a good question. It is clear that the impact of single-shot pistols is not the same as that of multi-shot pistols. The question is whether we should ban all handguns, which is what the Bill seeks to do and on which there is considerable agreement, not least because of the view of the police that that is much easier to enforce and also makes it easier to distinguish when illegal guns are being carried. If pistols are not legal, it is clear that if one is being carried, it is illegal.

Mr. Soames: I am sorry to push the Minister. Will he define for us exactly the safety argument in the matter? Will he also say why the exemption cannot be made, when there is a perfectly satisfactory licensing system that works when the police do their job properly? It is plain that the existing system would allow the exemption to be monitored adequately.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman missed the Second Reading debate, when he should have made that point. We are dealing now with a very specific exclusion—which is what I am trying to address.

Mr. Soames: Answer the question.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman mutters grumpily, as he has done throughout the debate. If he had mentioned his point on the Second Reading, it might have been worthy of debate. Perhaps he should read the transcript of that debate again.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We shall not have a debate across the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it not highly relevant to an amendment that seeks to exempt from the provisions of the Bill a particular weapon in particular circumstances that questions be raised as to the safety argument for not exempting that weapon? Is that matter not highly germane to the amendment at present under discussion in Committee?

The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members can raise any matter in Committee so long as it relates to the amendment. Amendment No. 7 is very narrow, and we

cannot have a Second Reading debate on it. Comments must be confined to the amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and I addressed clearly the question of safety within the narrow context of the clause. Is it not intolerable that a junior Minister replying on behalf of the Government should not answer a perfectly sensible question about the safety argument advanced by the Government, which is key to the debate?

The First Deputy Chairman: The amendment does not relate to safety: it deals with another matter entirely. The hon. Gentleman referred to "the clause", but this is not a clause stand part debate. We are debating amendment No. 7.

Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. The proposed clause relates to—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. We are not debating the clause; we are debating an amendment to the clause.

Mr. Soames: The amendment to the clause framed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey clearly states:
which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design".
The burden of the debate hinges on safety. Is it not intolerable that the Minister should refuse to answer my question?

The First Deputy Chairman: The Minister may express himself in any way he chooses. If he is out of order, I shall be the first to remind him of that fact.

Mr. Michael: I am very grateful, Mr. Martin. We are hearing some bluster from Opposition Members. The debate is not about safety but about whether there should be exemptions and whether those exemptions would be safe. The point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was a matter for the Second Reading debate. The claim of this group of shooters is no better than that made by many other groups who will be disadvantaged by the Bill. We accept that people will be disadvantaged by the legislation—that is an inevitable consequence of passing it into law. We cannot impose a general ban on handguns and then make exceptions that undermine the ban. The fact is that a single-shot pistol is capable of being lethal, portable and easy to conceal. The only difference is that it can be fired a single time, rather than several times, within a short period.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister is making a powerful case for consistency. He has referred to that point many times. However, he has not answered the questions that I posed on Monday or Wednesday, or the nine points that I raised with the Home Secretary on Second Reading. I received no answer to other questions that I raised earlier this year. There are many things wrong with firearms legislation in this country. The Government are pleading consistency, but patently ignoring it.

Mr. Michael: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the answers that he has received. This Bill


is very narrow: it says simply that we will move from banning 80 per cent. of handguns to banning all handguns. That is all the legislation does; it does not address a wide range of issues. Amendment No. 7 tries to reintroduce an exemption for one specific category of handguns: .22 single-shot weapons. My point—I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that I am making it powerfully—is that such an exemption would make nonsense of the Bill. It would treat one group of shooters in a way that is inconsistent with the general approach that is written into the Bill.
I referred to the evidence given to Lord Cullen because several hon. Members mentioned the speed of shooting using a single-shot handgun, which they claimed was one shot per minute. However, evidence to Cullen suggests otherwise. Mr. David Penn, a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, stated:
With reasonable practice, a shooter could get the reloading time down to about five seconds. I am content to accept that this could be achieved.
That is the evidence that a firearms expert gave to the Cullen inquiry, and it appears at paragraph 9.52 of the report.

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Michael: I think that I have had enough of the hon. Gentleman's interventions: they do not contribute much to the debate.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about consistency. If a man is sufficiently skilled to be able to reload a single-shot handgun in five seconds, why does that not apply also to an ordinary single-shot .22 rifle? Where is the consistency in that regard?

Mr. Michael: I do not see the hon. Gentleman's point. We are discussing a Bill that deals entirely with banning handguns. The amendment proposes an exemption in relation to single-shot .22 calibre handguns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not used to taking part in general debate in this place since transferring to the other side. We are addressing very specific points about a very specific amendment to a very narrow Bill.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I thank the Minister for giving way again. The Bill does not ban 100 per cent. of handguns, as it already makes exceptions for trophies of war, black powder weapons and other antique weapons. We are asking that one further category be exempted: the weapons used by Olympic shooters.

Mr. Michael: The exemptions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were made by the 1997 Act, which is already in place. We seek not to address all gun licensing deficiencies, but to deal with only one element: the exemption of 20 per cent. of handguns allowed by the 1997 Act. That is what this legislation deals with; it is attempting to exempt a narrower group than was exempted by the 1997 Act.
I point out once again that, if we introduce the exemption proposed by amendment No. 7, legally held weapons may still be used illegally. We cited the figures last week: one incident of gun theft—which may involve the theft of several weapons—occurs in England and

Wales every day. That may pose a danger to the public. The exemption proposed by amendment No. 7 would undermine the principle embodied in the Act that there should be a complete ban on handguns.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman warn all people contemplating travelling to France for their holidays that they will face a grave risk in so doing as it is possible to purchase a single-shot .22 handgun over the counter in that country?

Mr. Michael: There is a high incidence of accidents involving firearms in France. The point is that we deal with legislation for this country—I thought Opposition Members were generally in favour of that. We are trying to ensure public safety through a total ban on handguns rather than a partial ban, which would be difficult to enforce. However, that is a Second Reading point. We are now considering the narrow proposition that single-shot .22 weapons should be exempt from the ban. I would like to respond in detail to several smaller points raised by hon. Members, but that is the big picture. If we were to accept this amendment, it would undermine the consistency of our legislation, which aims to deal consistently with banning handguns. We believe that the 1997 Act, which is already in place, is defective. The Bill will put matters right. Acceptance of the amendment would undermine the consistency that we are trying to introduce.

Mr. Colvin: With the leave of the Committee, if that is necessary, I shall respond to some of the remarks that have been made during the debate. I am not satisfied with the Minister's summing up and, at the end of my response, I shall press my amendment to a Division.
We heard a powerful speech, as we are accustomed to in this place, from the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The hon. Gentleman always speaks robustly on whatever subject is before us. He speaks with immense knowledge of shooting, especially pistol shooting, and he is always sincere. That being so, it is significant that he failed to win any proper answers from the Minister of State. Nor did he receive any satisfactory answers on Second Reading.
I am pleased that so many Conservative Members have been able to participate in the debate and to have been in their places throughout it, especially as a beauty contest is taking place in Committee Room 10 for the leadership of the Tory party. I was pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) found time to enter the Chamber and join us in the debate. I have no doubt that he will give us his robust support. I hope that that does not mean that he has already been eliminated from the beauty contest. Perhaps the contest is one reason why more hon. Members have not been present. However, Conservative Members have consistently outnumbered Labour Members throughout the afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made, as one would expect, a powerful response in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), on legislation that might be pending to strengthen control of shotguns. I put the same question to the Minister of State on Second Reading. I asked him then how many draft Bills were in preparation, including those bringing shotguns and air rifles


within section 1 certification. I did not receive an answer on Second Reading and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex did not receive one this afternoon.

Mr. Michael: If we followed every rabbit that the hon. Gentleman seeks to set running round the field, we would be denying things left, right and centre. There are no draft Bills.

Mr. Colvin: I am pleased to hear that. That is the response that we could well have heard on Second Reading.
5.45 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the important point that neither the Hungerford massacre nor the Dunblane massacre could have taken place if the Bill, as it would be if the amendment were accepted, were enacted. Such a massacre could not be carried out with a single-shot .22. It is wrong to suggest that the public will be endangered if the amendment is incorporated in the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made a significant point, which was echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary. My amendment, as drafted, implies that single-shot .22 pistols could be kept at home, and that is intentional. If the argument is accepted that such pistols pose no danger to the general public because they are specifically constructed match pistols and impractical for use in crime or, indeed, for any other illegal purpose, there is no reason why they should not be kept at home.
If we had sought to exclude .22 pistols from the home and had insisted in the amendment that they should be retained in gun clubs in secure conditions, would the Minister have accepted such an amendment? It is a matter to which he might give further thought between the debates in this place and those in another place that are to follow it.

Mr. Connarty: The amendment refers to single-shot pistols, not specifically designed Olympic single-shot specially crafted pistols. If everyone who now holds a .22 pistol wishes to transfer to ownership of a single-shot .22, 40,000 .22 pistols will still be in circulation. That is the worry. What would happen if someone such as Hamilton were to have two or three single-shot guns? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that three deaths are just as bad as 16? At the beginning of the day of Dunblane, we were told that only one child had been killed. Does the hon. Gentleman not remember the shock of the nation?

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously the Minister of State's messenger boy as his parliamentary private secretary. He has displayed his ignorance of what the sport of shooting is all about. We are talking about single-shot sporting .22s that cannot be adapted for any other purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the sort of intervention that would be expected from an hon. Member with a strong constituency interest, in that he has Bisley, the home of the National Rifle Association, in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) argued that .22 pistol shooting was the crème de la crème of competition shooting. He expressed the hope that, in accepting the amendment, the Government would save face. We on the Conservative Benches are not normally in the business of suggesting ways in which the Government might save face, but in this instance they have it wrong and we have it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold asked specifically how many fatalities there have been as a result of crimes involving 22 rimfire handguns. We have not had an answer to that question.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked three specific questions. He wanted to know whether the amendment would help, whether it is right and whether it could cause harm. We have not had satisfactory answers.

Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend able to surmise why we have not had answers to the pertinent questions to which he has referred, when the Prime Minister has said that he wants there to be maximum public scrutiny of all proposed legislation passing through the House of Commons? Why have Ministers not been prepared to answer pertinent questions?

Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is best that we do not go too wide of the amendment. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to speculate why an hon. Member expressed himself in a certain way.

Mr. Colvin: I acknowledge your wisdom, Mr. Martin. I shall keep myself strictly to order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised some other interesting issues earlier in the debate. He was told by the Minister of State in an intervention in his speech that the Government were carrying out a review on safety. My hon. Friend had raised the important issue of single-shot .22 handguns. We were told that this is subject to yet another review. One of these days I shall table a question asking just how many reviews the Government have in being and how many civil servants are involved. Setting up a review seems to be the answer to every question on policy.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, with whom I was in complete agreement—unlike the previous debate in which I took part on this matter, when he was on the Government Benches and I gave him a rather rough ride—made the point that the official Opposition line does not enable them to support the amendment because it enables single-fire .22 pistols to be retained in the home. Would the Minister look again at the provision if an amendment were tabled in another place prohibiting the storage of these pistols in the home and insisting that they are stored in designated, official rifle clubs?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is starting to back-track from his amendment because it is deficient in a number of ways. He really should look at the evidence that was given to Lord Cullen by firearms experts about the ease of obtaining guns and extracting them from gun


clubs. It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and he should not hope for further consideration of his amendment.

Mr. Colvin: That displays a certain amount of dictatorial inflexibility on the part of the Government.

Mr. Soames: Can my hon. Friend help me, in view of the woefully inadequate summing up by the Minister of State? Everyone—including the Minister, although he does not understand it—acknowledges the extraordinarily high standards of safety, competence and skill of gun clubs, yet the Minister will not accept the amendment, presumably on the ground of safety. What is it that is so unsafe about this?

Mr. Colvin: The simple answer is that .22 single-shot handguns are remarkably safe. They are probably the safest firearms there are. We have heard from a few hon. Members how dangerous some other firearms, such as shotguns, are. Perhaps an air rifle is one degree safer, but it is very little different from a .22. I think that the Minister has got the message. I very much hope that he will have second thoughts about what is proposed in the amendment and his reluctance to look at the matter between now and when the Bill is considered in another place.
The Government are being very inflexible and dictatorial. They are also displaying ignorance of the sport of competition shooting. It is quite wrong to suggest that an exception for this type of handgun would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. That just is not so. We are in this place to defend the rights of minorities, and that is what Opposition Members have been doing with vigour, with stalwart help from the hon. Member for Stockton, North.
This is yet one more occasion when the proposers and supporters of the amendment have won the argument, and having done so, it is fair that on this occasion we should see whether we can also win the vote. I shall press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 333.

Division No. 29]
 [5.53 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Norman
Collins, Tim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Colvin, Michael


Bercow, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Cotter, Brian


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham &Stamford)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flight, Howard


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Garnier, Edward





Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Hawkins, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Hayes, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Horam, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Soames, Nicholas


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Steen, Anthony


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Key, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tyrie, Andrew


Lidington, David
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Luff, Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wilshire, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mitchell, Austin
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Woodward, Shaun


Opik, Lembit
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Christopher Chope.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)


Ainger, Nick
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Butler, Christine


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Austin, John
Casale, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Battle, John
Cawsey, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chaytor, David


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Robert
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cohen, Harry


Bradshaw, Ben
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)


Brinton, Mrs Helen



Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Colman, Anthony (Putney)



Connarty, Michael






Cooper. Ms Yvette
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Philip


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cummings, John
Hurst, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian (Tarnworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dean, Ms Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobbin, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Edwards, Huw
Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby)


Ellman, Ms Louise
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ennis, Jeff
Kingham, Tessa


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Ms Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Ms Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Love, Andy


Godsiff, Roger
McAllion, John


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCabe, Stephen


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Graham, Thomas
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Grant, Bernie
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grogan, John
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Gunnell, John
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McLeish, Henry


Hancock, Mike
McMaster, Gordon


Hanson, David
McNamara, Kevin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
MacShane, Denis 


Hepburn, Stephen
Mc Walter, Tony


Heppell, John
McWilliam, John


Hesford, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hinchliffe, David
Mandelson, Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hood, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meale, Alan
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Ms Gillian
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Miller, Andrew



Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Norris, Dan
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Webb, Steven


Radice, Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Alan


Rapson, Syd
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)



Rogers, Allan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Jeff
Wills, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Shaw, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:



Janet Anderson and



Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Maclean: Clause I should not stand part of the Bill, because the Government have not been able to justify it. That was clear from the Minister's inadequate response to the


previous debate. Despite being pressed numerous times, he was unable to give specific safety reasons why single-shot .22 handguns should not be added to the exemptions for certain closely defined categories of firearms holder.
It is legitimate and sensible to permit the 7,000 veterinary officers in this country to handle a handgun safely in certain conditions: not all them work in large animal practices that require a heavier calibre or repeat-shot weapon to dispose of casualty animals humanely. If it is sensible for them to be allowed to use handguns, what specific extra safety danger would be posed by permitting a group of people involved in target shooting competitions or in Olympic sports to fire .22 weapons with single-shot capacity? Largely for that reason, the Opposition will vote against the clause. The Government have also failed to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
Make no mistake, if the clause is accepted, Britain will be the only country banned from international pistol shooting competitions. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 at least allowed competitors from this country to take part on the international stage in the three .22 calibre events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
We have a long, noble and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting, which Britain invented and has dominated for more than 100 years. It is a sporting success story for Britain. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition, our competitors have brought home 23 pistol shooting medals in the .22 calibre events alone. As one of the original 12 modern Olympic disciplines, the sport deserves the same recognition as other more visible sports. It should not be lightly destroyed for no practical gain.
Pistol shooting is one of those sports in which everyone—young, old, male, female, able-bodied or disabled—competes on equal terms. They are all valued in the sport. Indeed, pistol shooting offers positive incentives for disabled people, but we shall come to that later, so I shall not stray down that avenue now.
It is legitimate to point out, however, that the British Paraplegic Shooting Association says that shooting is a form of rehabilitation that helps many disabled people with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and for sport. It provides them with a better quality of life, and encourages them to respect themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world. If the clause is accepted, disabled people and others will be disqualified from firing pistols in safe conditions.
Whether able-bodied or disabled, pistol shooters are honourable sports people. They cannot be lumped into the same category as the madman of Dunblane. He was granted a gun licence when, according to the Cullen report, the law was not applied as rigorously as Parliament intended when the firearms Acts were passed—I shall leave the hon. Member for Stockton, North to be more specific on that.
The clause bans all sporting pistol shooting. The Opposition would happily go along with that if it provided a sensible gain. If the Government were telling us that there would be a grave danger, a significant loophole and serious risks if we allowed such shooting to continue, every hon. Member would say, "That's it, I agree entirely." No matter how honourable the sport, no matter

how long the tradition, no matter the circumstances in which it is conducted, no matter that many disabled people can participate, we would be happy to let the sport be destroyed if the clause added measurable safety precautions to the existing controls, but it does not. The clause is nonsense.
6.15 pm
Rigorous safety controls to protect the public are already provided by the 1997 Act. Let me remind the Committee of those controls. The only pistol that the law still permits under the 1997 Act is a .22 pistol. The pistol is not to be left in secure gun cabinets in people's homes: it must be left only in those gun clubs that can show that they meet strict security criteria, that they satisfy the police that their premises have adequate security, and that appropriate procedures are in place to avoid any unauthorised removal of firearms from the premises.
Under the 1997 Act, pistols have to be held in those strictly limited, highly controlled and regulated circumstances. When the Act was going through, many hon. Members and people outside the House said that those conditions were so restrictive that many clubs would be destroyed, because they would not be able to meet such strict criteria. The previous Government hoped that that would not happen, but strict security controls had to apply to protect the public before shooting could be conducted safely.
Under the 1997 Act, .22 pistols can be moved from a club only if they have to be repaired or if the owner is competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club. Before a gun can be removed from a club, a permit from the police is required, and the gun has to be carried by a third party whom the police are satisfied is a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
Those measures to protect the public are in the existing law. The only excuse that the Government have offered for the clause is that it is consistent with the 1997 Act. That argument is nonsense. Of course one hopes that, somewhere along the line, legislation is consistent with existing law, but that is not a good enough reason for abolishing a sport and for abolishing .22 shooting, when, to use the phrase that the Minister used earlier, there would be no practical safety gain.
When pressed further, the Minister said that, when the Government talk about maximum safety, what they really mean is maximum practical safety. That is a considerable explanation—I was going to say "loophole"—and the Minister has perhaps given a considerable hostage to fortune.
I agree with the Minister that we should ensure maximum practical safety, but it adds not one iota of practical safety to go further than the rigorous controls in the 1997 Act—which permits .22 shooting only at gun clubs in strict conditions—and to abolish the sport altogether.
The clause has a practical effect. We take the Home Secretary at his word, because he is an honourable man. He intends to use section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to exempt foreign competitors who come to this country to participate in the Commonwealth games or for the Olympic games if we win the chance to hold them here in the future. I know that that can be done. Special certificates will be issued under section 5 to allow those competitors to shoot here.
There will be competitors from 50 to 60 countries, because shooting is one of the most important sports in those countries that were pressing Manchester to include shooting in its Commonwealth games application. No doubt arrangements can be put in place for those competitors, and we may later press the Government about them. It will be difficult, and much time will be spent by people at Queen Anne's gate and among police forces working it out, but arrangements can be put in place to allow such people to shoot in this country.
What nonsense. No doubt the media will wish to cover shooting events at the next Commonwealth games, and will find interesting the spectacle of people from other countries coming with weapons and firing them in strictly controlled conditions. They will fire those guns safely at sporting events, and the only people not able to take part will be potential British competitors in their own country, because clause 1 forbids it.
That is the nonsense that the Government advocate on the ground of consistency with the 1997 Act. It is not consistent, because that Act allows some exceptions. We have heard about the black powder case, and about the exception for veterinary officers who use weapons to kill injured animals humanely.
We suggested in an earlier debate that an exception on single-shot weapons could have been added. We lost that argument, and we naturally accept the overwhelming majority against us. Although we lost the vote, I do not think that my hon. Friends and I lost the argument, because the Government did not have a legitimate answer.
I should like to share with the Committee a letter from the British Olympic Association, which I think all hon. Members have received. The letter states:
Whilst the British Olympic Association welcomes tighter firearms control which will ensure that tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane are never repeated we are concerned about the impact that the proposed legislation will have on competitive pistol shooting in this country.
The legislation, as it stands, will effectively preclude representation by British athletes at future Olympic Games in the three Olympic shooting disciplines concerned. With 135 national federations competing for 20-30 places in each discipline there is a significant level of training and commitment necessary to achieve an Olympic quota place. Forcing competitive pistol shooting abroad will kill the sport and with it the necessary depth to ensure international representation at the highest level.
We therefore strongly support any reasonable amendments which will allow competitive pistol shooting in the Olympic discipline to continue.
I may wish to refer to that letter when we debate the new clauses. I mention it now because the Government have been quite dictatorial in driving through their opposition to amendment No. 7, which was perfectly reasonable, and they can easily win all the votes.
If the Government will not pay attention to the British Olympic Association, the British Shooting Sports Council, and the many honest sportsmen and sportswomen, some of whom have been or may still be police officers or who have served in the military, and who have handled handguns perfectly safely over the years and are members of shooting teams, I urge them at least to listen to Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who spoke with considerable authority on the subject.
If the Government see a chance of introducing even more tightly controlled conditions than those in the 1997 Act to permit sporting shooting in some form or other to survive, why will they not co-operate with us on that? If the single-shot amendment was flawed, or if, in the Government's view, it is too dangerous, is there nothing at all that they would be tempted to accept in the new clauses that would permit, under extraordinarily tight conditions—perhaps in one centre in the country—sporting shooting of some description to continue?
If it is the Government's view that it is wrong per se to allow such shooting to continue, they should say so. It is perfectly legitimate for them to say, "We do not want such shooting to take place at all. We do not want anyone who does not wear Her Majesty's uniform to fire a pistol under any conditions." If that is the Government's view, they should not hide behind a bogus safety argument that they have not made out to justify clause 1. Nor should they hide behind the argument of consistency, because their response to the debate on amendment No. 7 was clearly inconsistent with the exceptions in the 1997 Act.
If the Government say, "We want to reduce the number of people handling guns because of the gun culture," let them tackle television and the influence of films that promote the gun culture. They should not tackle the Commonwealth games team and the British Olympic team, and those who legitimately handle firearms safely in gun clubs.
There is a tremendous obligation on the Government to explain why they are determined to shoot down, if I may use that phrase, any amendment that would permit shooting in any circumstances. By their actions, they seem to be saying, "We have taken a decision on principle. All guns will be banned, and we do not care what arguments you or anyone else present, whether on safety, sporting, Olympic or disablement grounds. That is our argument in principle, and we are not bending from it." If that is their view, let them say so.
Unless the Government give some hope that it will be possible to protect in some narrow way the glorious tradition of .22 British pistol shooting at sporting events such as the Olympic games, the Opposition will have no option but to vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I shall be brief, because I do not want to go over the ground that was covered on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I explained the case for the Bill in Wednesday's debate. That case was clearly made, and it commanded the overwhelming support of hon. Members.
I do not intend to enter into debate about the Commonwealth or Olympic games, because new clauses deal with those issues. In his opening speech, the Home Secretary accepted and set out the Bill's impact, and he was congratulated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on being open and honest about that rather than trying to hide it. Our stall and the reasons for the Bill have been clearly set out.
Clause 1 contains the Bill's key element, and that is why it must stand part of the Bill. That key element is the prohibition of small-calibre pistols, which was accepted so overwhelmingly on Second Reading. The clause extends to small-calibre pistols the ban that was instituted


by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. That Act prohibited 80 per cent. of handguns from general civilian ownership, and clause 1 prohibits the remainder.
The points in the speech by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were made by some of his hon. Friends when he was the Minister responsible for these matters. He was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that we did not introduce a measure which we know will affect the sport of shooting lightly or without thought.
As I said earlier, in our original evidence to Lord Cullen, we said that we would look at the possibility of protecting the sporting use of handguns, although we felt that there was a strong case for a general ban. Our conclusion, which was thoughtful and reasoned, was that a complete ban was the right way forward. In opposition, we supported the 1997 Act, because we saw it as a vast improvement on earlier law. However, we also said, and have always said, that we did not think that it went far enough.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border accepts the principle that public safety should override the interests of sport. We think that a total ban on handguns will help public safety, but from his speech it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not. It is a matter of judgment, but I am glad that, unlike some of his hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle on which we have based the legislation. We believe that it will have the practical effect of increasing public safety, and, as I have said, we did not come to that conclusion without careful thought. We did not believe that the 1997 Act went far enough, or that the pistol clubs system proposed under the Act would guarantee the public's safety. The only way in which to do that is to remove the weapons from general circulation.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border cannot have it both ways. He says that we are not willing to listen and to allow exceptions, and then refers to the fact that we have indeed allowed and supported exceptions for veterinary purposes and for dealing with large mammals. Those are public interest exceptions rather than pure sporting exceptions, so we have been consistent, and have driven for the best possible outcome in legislation for the public's protection.
As I have said, the only way in which to achieve maximum public safety is to remove handguns from general circulation. That is the effect of the clause, and I hope that it can now stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Soames: In the spirit of the speech made by the Minister of State, I shall not delay the House long.
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). For many reasons, clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. There is no sensible, pragmatic reason why the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) should not have been accepted. The safety arguments were not answered properly. The consistency case has been lamentably badly made. It has not in any way altered the balance of feelings of any Conservative Member who opposes the clause.
The other extraordinary thing is the Home Secretary's remarkably high-handed, arrogant and cheeky response to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook),

who knows a lot about all this, and whose views on this matter are fortified and sustained by a considerable knowledge of sporting shooting. It is a pity that his views have not been more carefully listened to.
One of the purposes of the House is to safeguard faithfully the interests of minorities. It is unfortunate that, among other things, the Olympians, who have in such a distinguished manner represented this country for so long, will no longer be able to do so. That is a sad and unhappy state of affairs, which the House should not countenance or allow to happen.

Mr. Frank Cook: I do not know whether I shall delay the Committee uselessly this evening. Certainly, it is not my intention, but the simple truth is that I have raised numerous questions and made many points of logic, and none of them has received a sensible response. The only point that has been made in response to the case that I make, which I hope is based on common sense, is that I have been against the legislation from the outset and that I have been a passionate advocate, but that I am wrong anyway. That is not the way in which to counter logic.
I was against the previous legislation that was introduced by the Conservative regime and, as Opposition Whip on the Hungerford Bill, I was against aspects of that legislation. Incidentally, that was the first time that a Government lost their sittings motion. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was a Minister at the time, sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I am proud to say that I was responsible for the then Government losing the motion. I suppose that that is one way in which to get into "Erskine May". I was happy to do it.
That is a measure of the honesty that I have applied, or sought to apply, to proposals such as this all along, because all long they have been inadequate. Clause 1 is equally inadequate, because it does not recognise the simple truths of the matter. The whole morass of firearms legislation is full of anachronisms and anomalies. Clause 1 is symptomatic of that and one example of those anomalies.
What do we have in terms of facts? We know that Thomas Watt Hamilton acquired his original handgun illegally; that is a proven fact, provable with documentation. We know that his certification was inappropriate because the police did not check the false statements that he made; that is also a proven fact and checkable. We know that he was rejected by and indeed ejected from some of the gun clubs that he sought to join. We know that he engaged in illegal gun purchases and trading and that he threatened a lady with a loaded weapon through the open window of his stationary vehicle.
If that does not constitute grounds for the removal of all certificates and of all weapons, and indeed the throwing into custody of an individual, frankly, I do not know what the law means. The police had all those opportunities and, despite Sergeant Hughes pleading with his senior officers to take that course of action, a senior officer in the shape of a deputy chief constable refused to take action on the ground that he was afraid to go to a court of law on appeal. If they were as indolent and as dilatory in that instance, how do we know that they will be any more conscientious in the light of the Bill?
I have outlined the case in relation to Thomas Watt Hamilton. There is a similar history in the case of Michael Ryan and Hungerford. He, too, did not have lawfully held


weapons, as those weapons are frequently described by both Downing street and the Home Office. Frankly, I do not know whether I do any good by raising those points, which I have raised so many times before. The Bill is based on a false premise. We are taking punitive action against people who are law-abiding, who have conformed in every respect to this country's legal requirements, as laid down by the House, and we intend to punish them and indeed to make them pay a considerable sum; no one will convince me that the draft compensation scheme is adequate to provide for the stocks that people hold, certainly the dealers. Therefore, there seems to be a deeply entrenched determination to expunge the sport of pistol and revolver target shooting from people's leisure opportunities, regardless of whether they be young or old, black or white, able or disabled.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a supporter of Blackburn Rovers, who I am told have been known on occasion to play football. He will have attended those meetings and will have seen at the front, by the pitch side, disabled people watching the game, which I hope was entertaining—although it rarely was when Blackburn Rovers came to Middlesbrough. I wonder whether he has thought about whether the people sitting in those wheelchairs, or people with prostheses or arthritic callipers, take part in target shooting for the sake of a sense of sporting achievement, because many of them do. It might not have gained the attention of the Home Secretary on those occasions—[Interruption.]—and it certainly is not getting his attention today. Those people, whether they support Blackburn Rovers, any other football team or, indeed, any other sport, can, in the sport of target shooting, actively engage in the activity and compete on equal terms. We shall stop that if we go ahead with the Bill.
I want to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Is it his intention to do away with the sport altogether? If the answer is yes, and I fully expect it to be so, what will he do about policemen who are part of an armed team? I have news for the Home Secretary, as I had news for the previous incumbent of that post: any police officer undertaking firearms duty has an opportunity to use a shooting range, but the time on that range is limited. He has the opportunity to make several shots from a service weapon, but the number of rounds is limited. He has to stand square on at the range and shoot at a piece of cardboard, but that discipline is limited. To expect a policeman to go on active service with limited training time, limited experience loosing off rounds and with limited positional disciplines puts that officer at risk.
When I raised the matter previously, although perhaps not as comprehensively as I am doing today, the Home Secretary of the day said that police training was adequate. That is not so, but I would have great difficulty persuading a policeman to say so publicly. Why is that? It is because of questions of career development, of protection of pension rights and, sadly, because we live in a society in which the whistleblower virtually puts himself as the bull on the target at 25 m range, and has just as much chance of survival. It is indicative of the sort of nonsense surrounding the issue.
Many steps should be taken to make more stringent the legislation that applies to firearms of every sort, not just pistols and revolvers, but the Government are ignoring the

anomalies. They are turning a blind eye, yet at the same time they are pretending to be consistent and logical. Frankly, they are neither.
This evening will not exhaust my will and my wish to continue preaching common sense, because I believe that legislation should be based on common sense and be practicable and enforceable. However, I can give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some comfort, because I regret that after this evening's proceedings I shall not be able to continue with my arguments because of parliamentary duties elsewhere. I want to be sure that my arguments are clearly understood tonight. All reasonable proposals, for which my right hon. Friend pleaded, have been ignored without any response or justification—[Interruption.]—indeed, they are being ignored at this very minute.

Mr. Colvin: I support the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that clause 1 should not stand part. The Minister referred to clause 1 as the key element in the Bill, as it bans all .22 weapons. During the earlier debate on my amendment No. 7, which failed, the hon. Gentleman said that it was not the Government's business—and, indeed, it would be quite wrong—to talk about exemptions. However, as he admitted, there are already exemptions and exclusions. For example, he said that vets would be allowed to retain handguns. I would add the starters for athletic and swimming races. Slaughterhouse men are also entitled to retain handguns—.38 revolvers, which are much more dangerous than single-shot .22s used for competition purposes. There is also the question of black powder pistols. Exemptions and exclusions are already permitted and I see absolutely no reason to accept the Minister's argument against my amendment No. 7—that it would mean special exemptions. They exist in previous legislation and they exist in the Bill.
6.45 pm
There has been some discussion about the dangers of shooters going underground. Accepting amendment No. 7 or rejecting this clause would reduce that risk. If shooting with .22s is prohibited, there is a danger that some shooting might go underground. Of course, as other hon. Members have said, it is unlikely that any of the law-abiding community of sportsmen or women would go down that path.
I agree with the Minister on one matter—that the Conservative Members who have spoken today are generally opposed to the Bill. We have been doing our level best to try to salvage a sport at which Britain excels and which poses no security risk to the public. The Minister's arguments about safety were inadequate. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, it defies all logic.
Perhaps we should draw a comparison between .22 shooting and archery. I happen to be an honorary member of the Romsey Archers. I know that someone with a bow and arrow can fire more accurate shots, over a longer range, at greater speed and with a more lethal effect than could ever be the case with a .22 single-shot pistol. I am not trying to make a case for banning archery—[Interruption.] Obviously, the Minister does not understand the logic of my case. I am pointing out the illogicality of the Bill.
My amendment was a narrow one and the Bill is also narrow, but nothing is as narrow as the minds of the Minister and of the Government in what they are trying to do in the Bill. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border in asking the Committee to reject clause 1.

Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members want to speak. I remind the Government of the two central questions that I asked during the debate on the amendment. First, is the Bill right, and secondly, will it achieve what it is intended to achieve? The answer to both questions is no.
I also remind the Government that they are destroying an innocent pastime and I ask them to think about the sort of people who engage in it. They are nothing other than respectable, law-abiding citizens and their sport brings this country great credit. The Government are also removing from the disabled an opportunity for enjoyment and competition. I invite the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and even the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—with whom I shared a happy time on the armed forces parliamentary scheme—to come to the gun club in my constituency and persuade those in wheelchairs who compete at pistol shooting that it is for the benefit of the public that they should have their pistols and their opportunity for enjoyment taken away from them.
The Bill tackles the horrors of Dunblane and Hungerford by asking the wrong questions. Guns, whether automatic or multi-shot pistols, are obtainable on the black market throughout the country. We could go to any number of inner-city pubs and buy a pistol, be it single-shot or multi-shot, on the black market.
If the Government want to do something useful, they should increase the police resources dedicated to tackling the problem of unlawfully purchased or stolen weapons. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) suggested, Ministers could also increase resources dedicated to allowing police to fire more often and for longer periods within police time.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—which I did not vote for—went too far. This Bill and clause 1 go further, and to no good effect. I invite my hon. Friends to reject clause 1.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: In the debate on clause 1 stand part, it is appropriate to focus again on the key issue and to try to persuade Ministers—as persuasion is the only weapon that we have—to give some thought to our arguments. I realise that I shall perhaps again make some points that 1 have already made, in the debate on amendment No. 7.
I apologise that I could not be in the Chamber to hear the Minister's reply to the debate on amendment No. 7, but I have been told that he did not give any ground—although he said something to the effect that the Government would consider conducting some type of review. If such a review means that the Government might seriously reconsider their position before the Bill goes to another place—I should be grateful to have the Minister of State's ear on this point—and offer a possibility of modifying the Bill, it will have been a proper exercise of legislative function.
The case made by Conservative Members is that the only ground for passing such a stringent Bill is that the public interest and public safety require doing so, and

that the passage of such a Bill is necessary only if the single-shot pistol—which cannot be adapted and must be reloaded individually between shots—is seriously likely to be used in massacres such as Hungerford or Dunblane, which rightly horrified the House and the public. However, I have not heard either the Home Secretary or the Minister of State make that specific argument. I have also not heard them say that there is a real danger that someone who was minded to carry out such a massacre—who would be an oddball, and a dangerous loner—would attempt to use a single-shot .22 pistol.
Hon. Members know that it is only too easy to obtain other types of handguns, and we stand four-square with the Government in passing proper measures to prevent the illegal holding of any type of handgun. Conservative Members believe, however, that we have made a serious argument that the type of specialised sporting weapon used for the Olympic games, for the Commonwealth games and for other bona fide sporting activities represents no real threat of causing that type of massacre.

Mr. Michael: Amendment No. 7 was not as narrow as the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. We are now debating clause stand part, and the Bill in its generality.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment, which I take not so much as a rebuke as an invitation to think that Ministers may still have an open mind on the matter. I think that I am right in believing that a clause stand part debate is exactly the moment at which to attempt to put some slightly wider ideas into the minds of Ministers, so that, before they force through the clause, they may either reflect further on those ideas or have the chance to indicate that there will be an opportunity—perhaps at a later stage in the Bill's passage, such as Report or in another place—to make sensible and perhaps tightly focused amendments.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. and learned Friend, but I suspect that the review mentioned by the Minister of State will be an attempt to make the law even tougher. The Minister was concerned that black powder replica pistols, for example, might be used in a massacre similar to Dunblane. He said that Ministers were sufficiently concerned—in such an idiotic way—about such weapons that they might apply the ban to them.

Sir Nicholas Lye11: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's comments, and I can hope only that they are incorrect.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) did not listen to what I said. I said that the exemption introduced in another place to the 1997 Act had caused considerable concern to the police.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Such a matter can be fairly considered in a review. However, I am inviting the Minister to consider carefully focused amendments to the Bill, which will allow legitimate sporting activities to continue in tightly controlled circumstances, so that British citizens who are held to be responsible can train for and compete in the Commonwealth and Olympic games.
Such people will be few in number, because the sport is comparatively focused and involves a comparatively small number of highly responsible people. Moreover—as I have already made perfectly clear—they will be members of clubs. I suggest that they should keep their weapons at their clubs, as that would provide as much safety as any hon. Member could reasonably propose. I say that with all the more force—at the risk of boring the Committee—because, as we know, a person can go across the channel, buy a single-shot .22 weapon without any licensing requirement, bring it back to the UK in the glove box of his car and know that no one is remotely likely to stop him. It would require tight intelligence—of a type that there is no reason to believe there is or should be—to prevent such activities.
We are dealing with massacres committed by people who are unbalanced, criminally minded and extremely devious. Such people are likely—because they have done so in the past—to get hold of far more dangerous weapons, and they have evaded an already complex licensing system. Conservative Members are simply asking for tightly focused exemptions so that honest people can participate in an honest sporting activity that is of real importance to the United Kingdom and to sport. I ask the Home Secretary and the Home Office to think again.

Mr. Boswell: I invite the Home Secretary to think again. The passage of clause 1 will represent a step change in legislation, and the sport of pistol shooting, rather than being confined, will effectively be eliminated. It will be a change in quality and character and not simply in numbers, and it will entail all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
Simultaneously, in introducing a blanket and indiscriminate ban, Ministers are forcing themselves to be discriminatory. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said, the Government cannot control what happens outside the United Kingdom, because the Bill is confined to Great

Britain. Not even the Government, with their majority, can control what happens outside the UK, and the consequences will be remarkable.
The first consequence will affect Olympic and other competitions, about which we shall hear more later in the debate. Ministers will have to enforce exceptions in the system—although I am pleased that even limited exceptions are being considered—to enable activities that are regarded as perfectly acceptable and normal abroad to be pursued in the UK. The question remains, however—the Home Secretary has not clarified the matter—whether such exceptions will include the participation of British shooters alongside their continental counterparts, or whether British shooters will be uniquely discriminated against, in a manner that may well attract the attention of the European Court of Human Rights.
We shall require further clarification also on the issue of police certification for persons entering the UK, who are participating in shooting competitions. I raise that matter only to emphasise the difficulties that will require further thought.
Another matter must be considered. There is an issue not only of importation of illegal firearms—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire mentioned—but of discrimination in regard to the type of people who will be able to continue shooting. Someone who lives in Kent near the channel ports or who happens to be affluent can carry on shooting as much as he likes, because he can go to France or anywhere else where that activity is perfectly legitimate. It will be members of ordinary pistol clubs—probably those from less affluent backgrounds—who will be precluded. There will thus be a weird social inversion as an unintended but very real consequence of the Government's misguided policies.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was small-minded, mean and profoundly bad, and clause 1 encapsulates that fact. Also on Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the Bill was designed to protect the public, but can anyone really believe that small-calibre pistols—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.)

Private Bills (Procedure)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;
(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;
(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;
(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and
(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;


(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;


(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;
(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;
(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but
(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;



(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;
(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;
(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm

Mr. Peter Brooke: The purpose of the motion is to enable the private Bills that were before the House at the end of the last Parliament, or that originated here in the last Session of that Parliament before going to another place, to be revived and taken automatically through the stages that they had passed in this House. As a result, the Bills will be in exactly the same position as they would have been if the previous Session had not been brought to an end as a result of the general election.
When a Session of Parliament is brought to an end by a Dissolution, it is the practice of the House to enable those private Bills that were before it to resume their passage in the new Parliament, although I have read the thoroughly learned speech on the history of those matters by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who I see in his place, on 27 October 1982. I am indebted to him for the history that he set out.
The promoters of a private Bill and, where relevant, any petitioners concerned about the Bill or any aspects of it, are entitled to expect Parliament to consider that Bill individually and to reach a decision on the merits of each case. The revival motion will enable that process to be completed in the case of the six private Bills to which it applies.
Some of the Bills affected by this motion—for example, the King's College London Bill, which emanates from my constituency—have been the subject of careful consideration, both of the promoters' and petitioners' cases. Others, including the Imperial College Bill, with which I am also concerned, contain proposals which, though important, are uncontroversial. In both sets of cases, however, it would be unfair and quite unreasonable to refuse to pass the motion, thereby killing all the Bills


en masse, without any consideration of their respective merits. Having already incurred significant expense in promoting their Bills, promoters would have to start once more from scratch. That would be unfair not only to promoters but to petitioners who would have to present their cases all over again.
I have already adduced, in the last Parliament, the reasons why it is important that the King's College London Bill should be passed. The Imperial College Bill is an important piece of draft legislation, which affects not only my constituency but, like the King's College London Bill, the future of medical education in London. The Bill would provide for the Royal postgraduate medical school and the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school to be united with Imperial college, thereby establishing what we expect will become a world-class teaching and research facility, both complementing and benefiting from the world-class science teaching and research already carried out at Imperial college. The Bill is not party political or controversial. It passed all its stages in the House unopposed between January and March this year. When Parliament was dissolved, it was awaiting a Reading in another place.
There is considerable urgency in the case of the Imperial College Bill because the merger is due to take place on 1 August this year. Any delay in meeting that target will involve the college in considerable expense which, like all such public bodies, it can ill afford. I have spoken before of the need for the King's College London Bill.
I am aware that hon. Members have delayed the passing of the motion and caused it to be debated tonight because they are concerned about particular private Bills. It would, however, be quite wrong to refuse to pass the motion for those reasons. As I said, each private Bill should be individually scrutinised by the House and should pass or fail on its merits. That is what promoters and petitioners are entitled to expect. It is a practice which the House has long followed and it is why you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, have seen fit to table the motion which I commend to the House.

Mr. Alan Whitehead: I agree with the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and support the revival motion. I support it in order to breathe life into the Bill of which I am now the sponsor—the Southampton International Boat Show Bill. That Bill is about as uncontroversial as a Bill could be. Indeed, in the last Session, it passed all its Commons stages, received a Second Reading in another place in March 1997 and was awaiting an Unopposed Bill Committee when the Session ended.
The aim of the Bill is to amend the facility for the closure of the Mayflower park in Southampton each autumn as originally set out in the Hampshire Act 1983. The park is next to the waterfront and that is, of course, an integral part of the Southampton international boat show, which is now Europe's largest show involving more than 500 exhibitors, 120,000 attenders and more than £40 million of business transacted during the show itself.
The closure of a public park for more than six days requires permission by way of a private Bill. The Hampshire Act 1983 gives permission only for nine days'

closure. The variation between the closure to provide for public access to the show and park closure for the preparation and dismantling of the exhibition is therefore sought in order to allow an extra day of public showing.
The boat show is very much a part of Southampton. It is welcomed by the city's population, but its international reputation means that it receives visitors from across the world and provides an unrivalled showcase for the UK boat building industry, securing many export orders for that element of the nation's industry. It is therefore very important for the UK as a whole, not just for Southampton or the surrounding region.
The Bill, however, provides not an alteration in the overall numbers of days that the park is closed or partly closed but a variation in the days that it is open to the public to cater for the changing patterns of attendance at exhibitions of this type. The Bill will allow the show to open to the public over two full weekends—two Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
The 10-day opening envisaged in the Bill is now typical of the Southampton international boat show's competitors. Increasingly, visitors wish to extend their visits to such shows over more than one day and book hotels in the vicinity to that end. The provision of two full weekends therefore allows for the maximisation of the facility and brings the boat show into line with its overseas competitors. That is especially important for international visitors seeking to place orders for boats. Indeed, some sections of the UK boat industry, especially the power boat industry, export up to 90 per cent. of their production to overseas visitors.
As I said, the variation will in no way adversely affect the public's general right of access to the park since improvements in efficiency in the setting up and dismantling of the exhibition will mean that the additional day's public opening can be compensated for by less time spent on those activities.
Last year, the UK boating industry's turnover topped £1.75 billion. Overall, it represents a favourable balance of trade to the UK of £291 million a year. It is fair to say that it is a great success story for our country. The Southampton international boat show also provides an unrivalled opportunity for the business to show off its wares and for the public to get a taste of what is on offer and, in many instances, to place orders for the boats on display. I hope, therefore, that the House will find it possible to support that showcase and assist that public success story. By reviving the Bill and allowing it to continue and complete its passage through its various stages, the House will be assisting British industry in a positive manner.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The motion before the House appears straightforward, but it is actually one of the more arcane and esoteric segments of the House's business. I notice in passing that we are debating this subject at the same time as the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is meeting in Committee Room 20. In addition, the Tory party is having its hustings tonight—

Mr. David Maclean: Been there, done that.

Mr. Hughes: Some of us are spared having to attend that particular meeting.
I have a few things to say about the procedure and then about the Bills themselves. I own up to being one of those who has, by blocking the motion, forced this debate and I think it right that we should have this debate. I shall support the passage of the motion—my objective in forcing in the debate was to have the debate, not to block the motion. Therefore, like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I hope that, at the end of the debate, the House will vote for the motion and allow the Bills to go through.
A few years ago, the private business of the House reduced considerably after both an inquiry into private business and the changes that, by and large, took transport and works business out of the private Bill procedure. Private business remains a difficult area for the public to get to grips with and understand and I want therefore to comment on how we as the House of Commons might do more to make sure that it is not a hidden corner of legislation. To be honest, the electorate rarely get to know about it or participate in the process.
Private business is, by definition, business that does not affect the whole country, but affects only a specific area or institution. I hope that, as Parliament devolves powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, in time, to London and the other regions of England, we shall get rid of this sort of business from this place. There may be a national interest in the Bills—as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead) said, there is a Southampton interest, a south coast interest and a national interest relating to the Southampton International Boat Show Bill—but the reality is that whether the boat show is open for nine or 10 days is very much a Southampton issue and it is better debated by those with a local knowledge and interest, rather than in this place. The same is true of the other Bills that are affected—and, in a sense, hidden—by the motion. If we are contemplating taking democracy out to the people, as the Prime Minister did on Friday, I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, private business will have gone out to the people as well.
My second point is that we must get away from the nonsense of never knowing whether private business is going to come up. It can, in theory, come up on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, but never on a Friday, for some reason that I have never looked into.

Mr. Maclean: There is nobody here.

Mr. Hughes: There will be lots of people here on a Friday to debate fox hunting, so I am sure they could come for other private business.
It is a nonsense that, on a Thursday when the business statement is made, all that the Leader of the House says is, "The Chairman of Ways and Means may set down private business to be considered next Monday," without telling us what that business is, without it ever getting into the public record and, potentially, without anybody apart from those in the know knowing about it more than four days in advance.
Let us take two of the examples relevant to the motion: the Bills relevant to the south-west and Cornwall—I see the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is present—the Tamar Bridge Bill and the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. Those are both important pieces of legislation, especially in Cornwall, but it seems to me that, if they were to have come up in tonight's

slot, it would have been helpful for some sort of public notification to have been given to the people of Cornwall, and not only to the promoters, who clearly have an interest, and to those in the know.
We must get away from a procedure that is nobody's fault, but that means that private Bills are an activity that is carried on between consenting adults in private and only occasionally emerges at the last minute into the public domain. The Clerks are extremely helpful and I make no criticism of them, but a sort of loop that means that one does not know when or how to petition means that the great British public might be shut out. I hope we can, as the House, make private legislation much more accessible to the public.
The Library fact sheet states:
Private Legislation is a very complex subject, and the idea of these notes is no more than to provide an introduction for the layman.
I checked with the Clerk and discovered that "Erskine May", which is in the process of being updated from its 1989 edition, has pages and pages on the subject of private Bills and all the things that one can do with them and how one can object to them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, had he been in the House 100 years ago, he would have spent more time on private Bills than on public ones?

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, I am aware that the business of the House used to consist almost wholly of private Bills-the building of the railways meant that little else came to Parliament for years and years. I am glad that we have moved to a system of local inquiry, although I have some reservations about the powers of the Secretaries of State under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and believe that the balance may have been moved the wrong way.
I am keen that, as part of the modernisation process of this Parliament, we look for ways to make timetabling, fixing of dates and notification in advance of the proceedings of private Bills far more accessible to the public. The Leader of the House is not in her place, but I hope that, even in the next few weeks, we arrive at a system whereby private business is announced in the business statement so that people have notice of when it is coming up. I know that Government timetabling of business is always difficult, but we now have a system whereby we know in advance about private Member's Bills days and non-sitting Fridays. I hope that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons will come up with clear fixed dates for the parliamentary session, so that we know in advance about holidays, not because I want more holidays, but because those with young children need to know such things in advance—indeed, parliamentary Sessions should fit in school holidays. It seems to me that we could timetable private business as well.
My last point is that, as part of the procedure, we should make sure that all those with a potential interest in a private Bill should be formally notified, alerted and briefed, rather than the system allowing for people to find out by being tipped off. To take the example given already—the Southampton International Boat Show Bill—notification should be given to Members of Parliament for the county and the city, Members of the


other place with an interest, local bodies such as the city council and people who are known to have an interest in the subject of boating and marine affairs. There should be a procedure that ensures that notification is not some sort of accident and that briefs all those concerned at the beginning of a Parliament. These days, there are few private Bills—only half a dozen are affected by the motion and, in the last Parliament, there were only about a dozen. It is not too big a task and I hope we can address the matter and become more effective in dealing with it.
I shall deal now with the substance of the Bills. There are the two Cornish Bills—I call them Cornish, but that is like saying the Scottish play. One is clearly Cornish, but the other affects two counties—

Mr. Paul Tyler: Greater Cornwall.

Mr. Hughes: The other side of the Tamar cannot be called Greater Cornwall. The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill and the Tamar Bridge Bill are supported by my hon. Friends and they wish them good speed. The first Bill would secure the better management of stock on Bodmin moor and the second would allow improvement of the Tamar bridge, which is the gateway to Cornwall. That improvement is much desired—although in summer the people of Cornwall may wish that fewer people could cross the bridge—and needs to be facilitated. I agree with the hon. Member for Test that the Southampton International Boat Show Bill is the most modest of Bills. I hope that it passes through the House quickly. In fact, it shows the nonsense of the system when a Bill has to be brought to this place in order
to amend section 60 of the Hampshire Act 1983 to permit the closure of Mayflower Park in Southampton or the restriction of public access to it for 10 rather than 9 consecutive days each year for the purposes of the Southampton International Boat Show; and for connected purposes.
It may be a private sector enterprise, but it strikes me that using private legislation to extend the Southampton boat show for one day is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
There is a northern Bill to match the southern Bill. The Lever Park Bill
provides for the extension and adjustment of the boundaries of Lever Park…in the boroughs of Bolton and Chorley".
I admit to the House that I know zero about that proposal. No doubt, colleagues in both those parts of the north-west know about the proposal and have an interest in it and in North West Water and North West Water Heritage trust.
The two London Bills to which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred are academic Bills. They form a natural pair because they are part of the general proposals to consolidate academic and teaching medicine in quadrants around London. The Imperial College Bill is the latest in a series of actions that has brought together a considerable number of medical and dental teaching schools in London. The Bill will bring together the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school—where there were originally two hospitals and two medical schools, which I remember on my Universities Central Council on Admissions form—and Imperial college. In general terms, all the advice that I have received suggests that that is a good idea; it brings

cross-faculty and cross-specialist improvement. It means that medics are not simply with other medics or dentists with other dentists. It is also meant, I have been told by those who are slightly less pro-medic and pro-dentist, to civilise them so that they have to spend more time with other people.

Mr. Maclean: They need to become vets in that case.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know about that.
I am not sure whether I regard all the faculties at the Imperial college of science, technology and medicine as the most earthly and wide ranging in their interests. We always used to think that the least exciting people at college were the engineers and there are plenty of those at Imperial college. However, the idea is a good one and, clearly, if all parties—academics, boards of governors, undergraduates and postgraduates—want it to go ahead, it is right that it should. I heard what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—that there is a deadline and the merger is wanted by 1 August. That may be a reason for knowing timetables in advance and for fixing things—it would prevent uncertainty.
The last Bill that I have blocked is one that, at the end of the last Parliament, was awaiting its Third Reading: the King's College London Bill, which is jointly promoted. It is promoted by King's college London—a highly esteemed and valuable institution that is an important part of the university of London. King's college is based north of the river in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency and has outposts all over the country, which will also be consolidated. It is also promoted by the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St. Thomas's. There was a merger between two great teaching hospitals over the river and their medical and dental schools.
The Bill will bring together King's college, King's college medical and dental school, which is currently at Denmark Hill, and the united medical and dental school, which is currently principally on the Guy's hospital site in my constituency. It is a great medical and dental school which, I think, has the highest number of research gradings of any academic institution in the country. It is clearly pre-eminent and is of worldwide renown.
I have blocked that Bill: I wanted to use this opportunity to ensure that we did not simply let it go through on the nod. This is the first opportunity that I have had to send out the important message to the new Government that, although the merger does not necessarily threaten the united medical and dental school, there are still some residual concerns involving the present student body—concerns that I trust are now being addressed.
We must ensure that those who applied to and entered a specific institution, graduate from it. That may be a traditional and nostalgic approach, but I believe that if someone applies to Guy's hospital medical school, he or she will want to graduate from it. Guy's medical school is a different institution from a big amalgam of different schools. I hope that we can establish that principle. I have been encouraged by my conversations with the school secretary and with the principals of the two institutions. I hope that we can ensure that those who entered as students of one institution, graduate with that same institution on their degree certificates.
The proposal to merge is a good one, but it is still threatened by some of the implications of the previous Government's plans to move some of the activities from


the Guy's hospital site to the St. Thomas's hospital site. I know that at least one person in the House will not agree with that—my neighbour, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who represents St. Thomas's.
The most intensely fought local issue during the general election campaign in my part of Southwark, and one about which then shadow Ministers made promises, was the survival of Guy's hospital. For it to survive as a teaching and research hospital, it needs in-patients as well as out-patients. For it to survive as a credible entity, it needs a minimum number of in-patients. The best advice that I have received suggests that there must be a minimum of 400 in-patient beds. We therefore await with great interest the Government announcement—already considerably delayed—about the moratorium on hospital closures in London. I have made no secret of the fact that I have sought to persuade Ministers that the moratorium should apply not just to hospital closures, but to any rundown of services from the date of the election.
I am asking not for the clock to be stopped, but that we take account of the fact that the first review was based on information that was clearly inaccurate and factually out of date when Tomlinson made his report. We must also take account of rising demand in accident and emergency provision and rises in the number of patients. Above all, we must not agree to something without an assurance that, by the time the Bill reaches the statute book, there will be a viable academic teaching and research institution on the Guy's hospital site.
I have a letter from the principal of King's college and the principal of the united medical and dental school that makes it clear that the viability of the institution in its new format would be threatened if there were an insufficient number of beds. We are about to have the best out-patient facilities in the world in the new Thomas Guy house into which the first patients went earlier this month. It was budgeted to cost £50 million and actually cost £150 million. One can have wonderful out-patient facilities, but I do not think that any hon. Members would say that the real definition of a hospital was something with only out-patient facilities. Once in-patient facilities and casualty units are removed from a hospital, there is only a remote chance of anyone thinking that it is a real and fully functioning institution.
When, last year, I talked to people about the health service and academic medicine in some of the greatest American hospitals, they expressed concern that we should do nothing to undermine some of the best academic institutions in this country. I am privileged to be the Member of Parliament who represents one of them, but there are great hospitals all over the country—in Nottingham, Birmingham and elsewhere. I do not pretend that the one that I represent is the greatest hospital, but I know that it would be wrong for Parliament to legislate to undermine excellence or to take away the things that we do well—such as the Southampton boat show.
If the Government are to honour their implied commitment to the people at the general election, before the Bill returns they must make an announcement about the moratorium on the health service changes in London; they must include the changes at Guy's hospital and at St. Thomas's hospital in that review; they must look again at the issue; and at the end of the debate on those subjects, we must have a guarantee that there will be, for the foreseeable future at least, 400 beds on the Guy's hospital site in addition to all the other facilities.
The case is clear. I hope that the House, and especially the Government, will take it to heart. I hope that we shall proceed to deal with the Bills in the order of whatever is the most urgent in the next few weeks. I hope that, by next year, we shall have a more modern system for private Bills, which will allow the House and the world outside to know what we are doing and will allow all the people who want to participate to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak relatively briefly on the carry-over motion, but the House should not treat it as a routine matter.
Traditionally, the idea is that a carry-over motion should be passed after a general election, to allow private Bills that are in the pipeline to continue. I understand the arguments in favour. If money has been spent on drawing up petitions and if evidence has been heard, it is unfair if, through no fault of the promoters, they are obliged to start the process again. However, in my opinion that places some onus on the promoters to try to ensure that the Bill passes in a reasonably short time.
Increasingly, in recent years, it has been assumed that it does not really matter if not much progress is made in one Session; the Bill can be carried over into the next Session and the Session after. I notice that the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill has been knocking around in Parliament for more than four years. That is not a good way to deal with legislation. I believe that Bills should be carried over only once, and that there is a strong onus on the promoters to reach compromises—common in the history of private Bills—to ensure that their legislation passes in a reasonably short period.
Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the private Bill procedure needs urgent reform. We went a long way to do that with the Transport and Works Act 1992; many of us believed that these sessions at 7 o'clock of an evening in the House would disappear when the 1992 Act came into force. On the whole, it is working well. On Thursday 12 June 1997, the House passed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order 1997, which enabled one of the inquiries into the Stratford terminal to start, under that procedure.
All the evidence suggested that the 1992 Act was working well—until today, when I received a note from the Ramblers Association about the Welsh highland railway and the fact that some of the provisions of the 1992 Act were not being observed regarding footpaths. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will draw to the attention of the Department of Transport the fact that it must ensure that the 1992 Act is used fully and not abused. Otherwise, that method may come into disrepute and more private Bills may end up being debated on the Floor of the House.
As I said in an intervention, private Bills were used a tremendous amount in the 18th and 19th centuries for projects such as canals, railways and reservoirs, and almost always there was much wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. It was fairly common for bargains to be struck. I think I am right that Northampton worked hard to ensure that the railway from London to Birmingham did not go anywhere near Northampton, and then Northampton, having witnessed the benefits of the railway, had to work very hard to try to get a loop line added to it.
In the 19th century, various great landowners used the blackmail of blocking a Bill in the House of Lords to get their own personal station and to guarantee that express trains stopped there. The tradition of the argument, manipulation and manoeuvring that goes on during the passage of private Bills has a long history.
Legislation should no longer be passed in that way in this country. All private Bills should be dealt with through the Transport and Works Act 1992 or as agreed measures. I should have thought that the wheeling and dealing relating to the Southampton International Boat Show Bill had been done outside the House and all that we needed was a parliamentary Act to give it a rubber stamp, but one or two of the other Bills do not come into that category. The sad history of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill reveals the way in which the parliamentary procedures do not work well, and need reform.
The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill started as an agreed measure combining three interests—conservation of Bodmin moor, access to the moor and better management of the moor. That would benefit those people who had stock, in that if numbers were limited, grazing would be better and the return from farming activities would be improved.
Had the Bill continued in that vein, it might well have passed through Parliament—this House, at least—without argument, but the Bill was mugged in the House of Lords. People said, "Let us have the sections that give management of the moors, but let us get rid of the access."
I have been unable to discover why Cornwall county council agreed to a deal in the House of Lords that removed all the access provisions from the Bill, destroying the initial compromise agreement. Some of the Labour county councillors for Cornwall, whom I spoke to, were amazed that that deal had been done. I am still waiting to be told on what authority from the county council its agents in the House of Lords removed that clause. One cannot expect the people who originally agreed to the compromise of access, conservation and management, to be happy if a third of the platform was torn away in the House of Lords. That is where the Bill has run into considerable difficulty.
During the past 12 months, when I have been opposing the Bill, I have been asking only that we reinstate the access provisions, to achieve the original compromise. However, the arcane procedure of the House says that a private Bill can only be narrowed. I find that an amazing concept.
If one were promoting a railway and the relevant railway Bill originally said that the line would go from London to Liverpool, I can understand that the last-minute addition of provision for the railway to continue to Preston would be an expansion of the Bill and would be unreasonable. However, if one starts with a Bill that has access in it, balancing conservation measures, it is odd that if access is removed in the House of Lords it cannot be reinstated in the Commons. That is an anomaly. What was narrowing for one group of people was widening for another group. What was widening the rights of the commoners was narrowing the rights of the people to access.
We must get round that. Fortunately, in relation to the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, there was a way round for the county council, because instead of returning to the

House and inserting access clauses into the Bill, it was easy for it to set up access agreements to the moor. I have been arguing that the county council should have got on with that.
Access agreements exist frequently in the Peak district and other parts of Britain. Often they exist by agreement between a county council, a national park and the landowner, but there are examples of access agreements that are arranged by county councils in spite of the opposition of the landowner, and there is a process by which the landowner has a right of appeal but eventually the access agreement can be put in place.
It would have been perfectly possible for Cornwall county council to remedy the problem that it had created. It dropped the access proposals in the House of Lords. Having made a mess of things, it might have put them back in place by using normal legislation for access agreements, and while doing so, might have suspended action on the Bill in the House. By now, the council could have returned to the House and said, "We have binding access agreements in place. May we have the Bill for the management parts?" I would then have been happy to let the Bill go through. But no: the county council did virtually nothing for six months. Then, just before the election, the council again tried to rush the Bill through. Not surprisingly, it was blocked.
One or two people in Cornwall have put it to me that we should let this management Bill go through because the Labour Government are committed to right-to-roam legislation, so by the time the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill is on the statute book that right to roam will nearly be in place. I never count my chickens before they hatch. I think it quite possible that the legislation will take some time to go through Parliament. I therefore believe that it would be wrong to allow the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill to go through before access has been sorted out.
I strongly urge Cornwall county council to get back to negotiations with the landowners and to put access agreements in place.
Interestingly, not far away in the south-west is Dartmoor, for which an agreed access measure was produced allowing for management and access. That private Bill went through the House with no problems and is working well. The farmers enjoy grants for their agriculturally sensitive farms, and access is also in place.
I plead again with Cornwall county council to put access measures in place before returning to this House. We have lined up about 100 amendments to the council's Bill. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) wants to spend a lot of time arguing the case for those amendments when, if the county council were prepared to negotiate, something could be done much more quickly.
Another Bill on the list is the Lever Park Bill. I was delighted to see it, because it solved a small constituency matter for me—namely, the fact that there are proposals to develop the reservoirs owned by North West Water at Audenshaw. I was pleased to see the company promoting a Bill for the area; it came as confirmation that, if it wants to develop anything at Audenshaw, it will have to go through the private Bill procedure. As I keep assuring my constituents, getting a private Bill through the House is no easy matter.
I began objecting to the Lever Park Bill simply to show North West Water that I was capable of making a fuss about private Bills dealing with reservoirs. The trouble is


that one gets drawn into the process. I warn anyone listening of the snags: showing the slightest inclination towards or knowledge of private Bill procedure induces people to start pressurising an hon. Member and asking him various questions.
The Lever park Bill is designed to introduce a management scheme to the old Bolton reservoirs and the Lever park area around them. That would appear to be a very good idea. I know that the former hon. Member for Chorley was particularly keen on the development of a visitors centre close to the hall, which would improve public access. Equally, some local people do not want more visitors in their back yards.
In order to come up with a management plan, North West Water wanted to get rid of the rights of way running through the area. I can appreciate that the company might find it difficult to negotiate with one or two people who do not want more visitors in their back gardens, but North West Water could and should have entered into detailed negotiations with the Ramblers Association, the Peak and Northern and various other footpath and conservation groups in the area so as to sort out the problems to do with the Bill. Had the company done so, the Bill could have gone through quickly.
I stress again that private Bill procedure should be embarked on as little as possible in the House. Whenever possible, private Bills should be agreed measures that can go through without taking up time. Whenever possible, the Transport and Works Act should be used. If people want to introduce Bills, they must demonstrate that they are prepared to negotiate and arrive at compromises, removing any controversial issues.
I hope that Cornwall county council will get down to serious negotiations if it wants the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill to progress; the access problems must be solved. I also hope that North West Water will talk to the people concerned about access under the Lever Park Bill so that that issue, too, can be solved.

Mr. David Maclean: I do not oppose the carrying over of private Bills described in the motion, but I want to comment briefly on a glaring anomaly in the procedure. It concerns the Transport and Works Act; I am sure that both the shadow spokesman and the Minister responsible will deal with the matter in their speeches later this evening. Perhaps the usual channels, or a Select Committee, or a brief consultation document issued by the Government will resolve the issue. In any event, some urgent procedure is required to deal with the anomaly.
The Transport and Works Act works well—if the works take place solely in England or in Wales. But a company called Border Transport Futures proposes to build about 16 miles of railway line between Scotland and England in part of my constituency and part of that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The company has decided to use the private Bill procedure instead of an alternative. Such an alternative is available, but it is slightly more complicated because the works are partly in Scotland and partly in England.
Last year I checked with the Department of Transport and the then Minister wrote to me to say:
I can confirm that this railway could be authorised either by Private Bill or a combination of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and an Order made under the Transport and Works Act. I can see, however, that the promoters are likely to favour the private Bill procedure"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am having some difficulty spotting the connection between the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about a future Bill and a motion for the continuation of six current Bills.

Mr. Maclean: I certainly believe, Sir Alan, that those Bills should be carried over into this Parliament, but I am expressing reservations about the procedure. It could allow—unjustly—some Bills to be carried forward which, while they should complete all their stages in one or two Sessions at most, may in fact take three or four years to complete. That will give their promoters an unfair advantage, while protesters against such Bills would incur a great deal of expenditure over a long period of time.
There would, moreover, be much uncertainty if the promoters of such a Bill were lackadaisical. The promoters of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill may be slightly lackadaisical about getting their measure through Parliament. I am worried about a loophole in our procedures that could allow a lackadaisical company such as Border Transport Futures to exploit the anomaly and to go for a private Bill procedure that would be rather complicated because it relates to both countries in the Union. Such a measure, if proceeded with, might be carried over from Session to Session—even beyond another general election.
I was going to conclude, Sir Alan, by saying that these procedures could apply to any of the Bills under discussion this evening—

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Another element of this procedure is blight. Some of these Bills are used to promote serious construction works—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) should sit in his place while another hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. Rowe: I was just saying that a number of those Bills are used to promote construction projects, the principal victims of which are private citizens whose properties are blighted by whatever is projected. If the promoters are allowed to proceed lackadaisically, the blight is perpetuated.

Mr. Maclean: That is correct. Blight has already been caused in my constituency by the prospectus that BTF issued saying that it intends to go for the private Bill procedure. That has caused considerable concern to landowners and householders in my constituency. One reason why the company wants to do that is that it hopes to get compulsory purchase powers in the Bill so that it will not have to pay the full market value of the land.
The Transport and Works Act 1992 was passed by the House to avoid new railways legislation, for example, going through the House as private Bills. At that time,


the House had no thought whatever that someone might come along one day with a railways Bill that would apply partly to Scotland and partly to England. It should not be beyond the wit of the House, a Select Committee or a Minister to issue a short consultation paper, which would find favour on both sides of the House, suggesting that the House does not wish to see another private railways Bill before it next year or the year after. Such a Bill would bog up Committees and take up time in the House whereas it could be dealt with either through an amended Transport and Works Act or by some procedure agreed with the Scottish Office, which would apply the same procedures in principle as the Transport and Works Act.
That is the plea that I make tonight. I appreciate that I cannot expand the point properly because I would be discussing a Bill that is not before the House, but I shall have no other opportunity in the foreseeable future to raise the general point of principle about that little anomaly in our procedure, which, with good will on both sides, could easily be plugged.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: It is with great reluctance that I rise to speak to this motion, which revives six Bills—as hon. Gentlemen have already said, there is a great deal of good in many of them. The House should examine private Bill procedure; we are making a decision that affects all the Bills as a group, so if we want to object to the revival of just one, under the terms of this motion, we must object to them all. That is not a sensible way to proceed. We should consider the notion of linkage in the future.
I want to object to two of the Bills because the promoters are at fault in two respects: first, they have been dilatory—they have not made progress with the Bills; secondly, they have shown a gross reluctance and inability to consult and compromise. I particularly wish to discuss the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has already mentioned it and I want forcefully to support one of the points he made. I am surprised that, under the private Bill procedure, a Bill can be narrowed but not widened.
When the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill first came to the other place, it contained access provisions, but they were quickly dropped. When it came before this House, many of us wanted to argue that cause but were told firmly that the Bill had been narrowed and that we could not add to it. A third of the original Bill was about access, but that provision had been dropped in the other place and we were unable to argue for its inclusion. That procedure is wrong and needs reviewing.
I am reluctant to oppose the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill as it contains many good provisions. I criticise it for sins of omission rather than sins of commission, which is a bit like arguing about a Jane Austen novel from a Marxist perspective. Marx would argue that the novel contains nothing about the Napoleonic war; I argue that the provisions of the Bill are good but that what is left out ought not to be.
The promoters, particularly Cornwall county council, should hear the voices that want access on Bodmin moor. The Bill could do a great deal of good in Cornwall.

I admire its conservation aims and believe that the promoters are right to want better husbandry on the commons, but they disregard other voices. We are now in an age in which people should listen to all the voices and try to compromise.
The promoters argue that those of us who object to the Bill are urbanites. They try to characterise the argument as rural versus urban communities. That is old politics and they would be wise to listen to all the voices, because those of us who love and care for the countryside know that it can develop only if the right balance is struck between all its needs and the different demands on it. That is where the Bill is fatally flawed. It was good in its original form. I remind the House that it received its Second Reading on 7 June 1994 in the other place. It has had more than three years to make progress.
I have been surprised at the promoters' stop-start attitude. They have sought to make progress when that suited them but, despite pleas from many of us and meetings that we set up to make progress, they have not consistently tried to take the Bill forward. They deserve criticism for that; it is a fundamental reason why the Bill should be opposed tonight—the promoters have had more than three years to get it through the House.
The most damning criticism of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill is the lack of consultation and Cornwall county council's inability to compromise and listen to other voices. The Bill's history speaks for itself. Prior to its publication, a number of organisations such as the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society wanted to talk with the promoters, the county council, about the Bill's progress so that it could be put into practice quickly. The county council ran away from those talks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and I attended a meeting in the Palace of Westminster earlier this year at which members of Cornwall county council were surprised that the access element of the Bill had been withdrawn in the other place. They had not been told. A decision had been made somewhere within the county council which had neglected to tell a proportion of its members. That cannot be good practice.
Several of us have set up meetings with the county council to explain that, although the access provisions were withdrawn in the other place, the Bill allows the setting up of a commoners council which, within two years, must produce a management plan. The county council has made no progress in getting people round the table to try to build up an access plan. Various organisations, such as the Ramblers Association, have offered to start those meetings and provide a facilitator. I am surprised that the county council has not taken the matter forward.
If the Bill is to make progress—I wish it well and want it to succeed—the promoters must listen to other voices. The Bill could do much for Bodmin moor, Cornwall and those of us who love the countryside.
Another Bill before the House is the Lever Park Bill. That, like Bodmin moor, is an area that I know well. Things need to be done at Lever park. North West Water is right to try to bring about management changes. Once again, it must heed the voice of local people and use its own resources. The company is not short of money to make improvements at Lever park. I note that one of the objectives of the Lever Park Bill is to bring national


lottery money into Lever park. The Lever Park Bill would make progress if the promoters were to consult and look for consensus, and if they gave an undertaking to use their own resources to better Lever park, which does, indeed, need betterment.
The private Bill procedure is out of date and out of time, and needs review, but it is what we have at present. Those of us who are accused of being urbanites are disregarded and given bad press reports. My plea to the promoters of both Bills, which are about enhancing the environment and lifting the landscape, is to listen to our voices, too. The countryside is for all of us. We aspire to leave a better environment for our children. The promoters of both Bills should listen to our voices, consult and compromise. Then we can all go forward to leave to our children the legacy that we so desire.

Sir Peter Emery: I apologise for not having been in the House for the whole of the debate, but I have been serving the House in the Select Committee on the revision of the management of the House. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Having been Chairman of the Procedure Committee for the past 14 years, I hope that he will not cast any of his aspersions on me, because the Procedure Committee is allowed to deal only with public business and has no control over the aspects of private business that the hon. Gentleman criticised.
I ought to declare an interest at the start. Although I do not believe that I have to, I always like to do so. I am the chairman, entirely unpaid, of the National Asthma Campaign, which has some obvious interest in the National Heart and Lung Institute referred to in the Imperial College Bill.
I want to say a few words about the procedure and the Imperial College Bill. I think that the procedure is right. A great deal of time, effort and money is put into the promotion of such Bills, but they are often cut off as time cannot be found for them in the legislative timetable, usually because Government business has left insufficient time for private business. It is therefore only right and proper that there should be an opportunity to carry those Bills forward into a new Session, as proposed.

Mr. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Chairman of Ways and Means has the absolute right to name time for private business? My experience is that he takes no notice of Government pressure, and names time. Any dilatoriness about the Bills is entirely down to the promoters, not to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir Peter Emery: I cannot speak for all the Bills, only for the Imperial College Bill. I do not believe that that is a fair assessment, as I have watched with interest as the Bill has come to the other place and then to this place.
I have some connection with the Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals and I have seen the training carried out in them, often under the leadership of Professor Roger Greenhalgh, who has been the dean and professor of surgery at Charing Cross hospital and who has done so much to bring about the amalgamation of the Westminster and Charing Cross hospitals into the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, which I believe will

in due course become the leading centre for training of medical personnel in the whole of London. A new building is being constructed for it.
It is only right and proper that the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school and the National Heart and Lung Institute should be brought together, as the Bill proposes, to create that centre of learning. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were further delayed. After the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I need say no more other than to point out the interesting fact that under clause 10 nobody may pick up the names of the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school, the Royal postgraduate medical school or the National Heart and Lung Institute until 25 years have lapsed, without the approval of Imperial college.
At this late hour, to allow hon. Members to go to dinner, I shall sit down—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members say that, I might go on too long. With the support of the House, which I see will readily be given, I am sure that we can proceed properly and fully.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise after a little more than five years of oratorical abstinence in the Chamber, due to my time doing good by stealth in the Government Whips Office. Now, in my capacity as the acting deputy shadow Leader of the House, may I say that we entirely endorse the motion, not because we necessarily support any of the Bills that are being revived, but simply because we believe that it is right and proper that each of the Bills should be judged on its merit and properly scrutinised in this Session.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right to say, in a fascinating speech, that we should review the possibility of allowing a Bill to be revived only once through one Session, and that there should be penalties if the promoters are unduly dilatory. With that proviso, the Opposition entirely support the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I rise to express the Government's hopes that the House will agree to the motion. However, we believe that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) suits the role of a Trappist rather more than that of a preaching black friar.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) raised proper constituency or party political interests on the back of this motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was as erudite as usual on this subject, regarding both the history and the practice of procedural matters. I undertake to pass on his comments to the appropriate Ministers. I make the same pledge to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who raised an anomaly that I am sure will be of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—who is not in his place—made a rather curious intervention about blight, which left me in mind of what is occurring in another place regarding the leadership of the Conservative party.
The purpose of the motion is to allow the revival of the private Bills that were before the House at the end of the last Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, and which fell automatically at the Dissolution of Parliament. The motion will enable them to be proceeded with in this Session at the stages they had reached at the end of last Session. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are many precedents for carrying forward private Bills in this way in order to avoid unnecessary expense and delay.
The motion is concerned solely with procedure. Those hon. Members who wish to make points of substance about any of the Bills to which this motion applies will have every opportunity to do so when the legislation that they are concerned about comes to the House for its next stage. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;
(2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
(3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;
(4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
(5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

(i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;
(ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House, the Bill shall stand committed and—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and
(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;


(iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

(iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;


(6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;
(7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;
(ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but
(iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;


(8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;
(10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
(11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;
(12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;
(13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Again considered in Committee.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Private Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by welcoming the Financial Secretary to her new responsibilities, and by wishing her well. I raise this issue tonight because I received several letters during the recent election campaign from elderly constituents expressing concern about Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals to scrap tax relief for private medical insurance. Perhaps I should also declare a sort of interest in the debate: the law firm I founded has a corporate private health scheme for staff. I have a constituency interest also, as Private Patients Plan is a major and respected employer in Eastbourne.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is not in his place, wished to be present for my Adjournment debate, as he is the sponsor of early-day motion 26 concerning tax relief for medical insurance. However, illness in the family has sadly prevented his attendance tonight. I know that he takes a close and detailed interest in this issue.
For once, we have a clear pledge from the new Labour Government: in this case, to abolish private medical insurance. In opposition, Labour made no secret of its hostility towards it. It might be helpful to examine the background to this issue. The White Paper, "Working for Patients", which was published by the previous Government in January 1989, set out the growing importance of the private medical insurance sector in this country. It referred to
the increase in the provision of medical insurance cover by companies for their employees. But in most cases this cover stops when an individual retires. As a result, people are faced with deciding whether to take out cover as individuals at a time when their income has fallen and when medical insurance premiums rise.
There is no general tax relief for the costs of private health care, but tax relief is given for private health insurance for the over-60s. That relief is given by making a deduction from the amount of the premiums due, so that even non-taxpayers benefit.
In the 1989 Budget, the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, announced that the relief would come into effect from April 1990. In the November 1993 Budget, the then Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), announced that the relief would be limited to the basic rate of tax with effect from April 1994.
One obvious reason for limiting the relief at that time was that it had become quite expensive because it had become popular. The total cost of relief is estimated at £120 million in 1997–98. That sum is payable in respect of some 400,000 contracts, providing cover for about 600,000 individuals. When the relief was introduced, only 400,000 individualswerecovered—so it is easy to see the rapid rise in its popularity.
It is estimated that 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom over the age of 60 have a tax relief PMI plan. In my constituency, there are some 600 subscribers—involving 1,150 people, as obviously some policies cover a couple or a family—to PPP alone. The number of my constituents who have plans with other


providers—I gather there are about 30 in the market at present—will be much higher. I have no doubt that a high percentage of those subscribers are over 60. According to recent statistics, some 40 per cent. of voters in my constituency are over retirement age.
The growth in the appeal of private medical insurance to the over-60s is interesting. As the Association of British Insurers has pointed out, three factors might lead one to expect that fewer older people would be covered by medical insurance. Those issues were addressed in the 1989 White Paper.
The first factor is the increased cost of insurance as one grows older. Secondly, as a rule, that portion of the population does not have access to employer-provided insurance. Thirdly, the over-60s tend to have less disposable income than those in full-time employment. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude—as the ABI did—that the tax relief on these premiums is a major factor in encouraging a high level of take-up among the over-60s.
Labour spokesmen often try to drive a wedge between the NHS and private health provision for purely dogmatic reasons. The fact is that the two ways of providing health care in this country are complementary, and—as I shall demonstrate in a moment—a substantial fall in private health provision could cause major problems for the NHS. We should remember also that elderly subscribers to PMI have supported the NHS throughout their working lives by paying tax and national insurance contributions. They have made a personal decision—a choice—to use some of their spare resources to acquire PMI cover. The Government want to abolish that choice.
There is also considerable logic in providing tax relief only for the over-60s because, first, premiums naturally increase with age; and, secondly, upon retirement, people often take over the payment of premiums after leaving a corporate scheme. Tax relief therefore helps to ease the transition from the world of work to retirement.
There is no doubt that private medical insurance carries a major burden in terms of health care for the over-60s. We know that 80 per cent. of the premiums paid on such plans are paid out in treatment costs. The private sector now treats 28 per cent. of all hip operations, 20 per cent. of all heart conditions and 20 per cent. of all acute conditions.
Figures provided to me by Prime Health show that 6,840 hip or knee-joint replacement operations alone were carried out in the past eight months, at a cost of about £40.5 million. The average stay in hospital was 10.85 days for this procedure, equating to a potential of nearly 72,000 days' accommodation for hip and knee-joint replacement patients.
Apart from hip replacements, other common procedures such as cataract removal, coronary bypass and prostatectomy operations carried out on customers increased by no less than 30 per cent. in 1996 over 1995.
I have already said that people already expect their premiums to increase as they grow older. There are also yearly adjustments for inflation. The ABI tells me that that means that there is already a natural incidence of lapses in cover and what is called trading down, which is buying a policy with lesser benefits.
My argument is that policyholders know in advance that their premium costs are likely to increase, and can therefore budget and plan to meet likely increases.

The ABI tells me that the industry average for the lapsed rate is between 5 and 10 per cent., rising to between 15 and 20 per cent. when age-related increases are made to the premium rates.
The removal of tax relief at 23 per cent. means that policyholders will in effect pay an extra 30 per cent. According to Prime Health, its research has shown that, when an increase of 30 per cent. was mentioned, 35 per cent. of policyholders said that they would cancel their policies or look for a replacement policy. According to the ABI, some companies estimate that up to 50 per cent. of policyholders would lapse their policies.
That is not all. There is also what the ABI calls a domino effect. As the number of existing PMI policyholders decreases, an additional burden will be placed on remaining contributors. That in itself would increase the cost of premiums yet further, causing even more policyholders to lapse their cover. I am told that there would also be significant administrative costs to the insurers in abolishing tax relief.
But, I hear you ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "Does this matter?" Surely these people could revert to relying on the NHS for any medical care they needed. Well, let us remember that we are talking about an age group of whom many will already have a pre-existing condition, which in turn makes it difficult for them to shift health schemes or trade down, or who, because of their age, are more likely to develop health problems than younger sections of the population.
National health service hospitals such as my local district general hospital would suffer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed the relief. Thirteen pence in every pound paid out, for example, by PPP goes to the NHS. That amounts to about £220,000 paid to the NHS by PPP alone every working day, or £55 million a year. That is only one company.
I do not have the figures for all the other companies, including, for example, BUPA, but no doubt the Minister will be able to supply them in her reply. The point is that the Government would have to find additional resources merely to maintain the financial status quo. Additional costs, which are difficult to quantify, would also arise for the NHS because many subscribers are elderly and require expensive treatments, and more often.
I hope that the Minister has her own best estimate of the revenue stream that would be lost, and also the knock-on costs of many current elderly subscribers reverting to health care on the NHS.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I am listening with great care to what he has to say. I wonder whether, in his research, he has carried out any costings on the differential between abolishing tax relief on private medical insurance and the cost to the national health service of those people who will inevitably have to opt out of PMI and into the NHS, thereby costing the NHS a considerable sum. Is he able to tell the House the sums involved?

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who in his inimitable fashion has put his finger on the central issue. It is easy to draw attention to the figures on the one side, which are the savings to the Treasury. I think that the Minister referred to them in a written answer recently, and stated that they would amount to £120 million.
On the other side of the equation are two significant areas of costs. Direct revenue will be lost from the private sector to the NHS on a daily and yearly basis. In addition, there will be all the additional costs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has referred, as a result of policyholders opting out and lapsing their policies, and relying on the NHS instead. That is the key point.
The plain truth is that there is a massive contradiction at the heart of the new Government's policy on this issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends will well remember that, during the election, the Labour party made five major pledges, one of which was that it would cut NHS waiting lists by 100,000. I think that Labour party members even carried little cards setting out their five major pledges. In fact, their proposal to abolish tax relief for PMI would put greater strains on NHS resources.
In my constituency, with a high proportion of elderly residents and many PMI subscribers, I have little doubt that waiting lists would lengthen, not least because some of the elderly who were previously relying on private health care would be waiting for difficult and expensive treatments from the NHS. I must stress to the Minister that the constant theme in the letters I have received on the subject from constituents has been that it was tax relief that made the cover attainable, and that removing it would make all the difference as to whether they could continue paying their premiums.
The Government may rethink their proposal—I certainly hope they will—but if, for what are clearly dogmatic party political reasons, they are determined to proceed, may I urge upon the Minister the ABI' s view that, at the very least, the withdrawal of the tax relief should be phased? There has already been a reduction in the maximum tax relief from 40 to 23 per cent. There was a similar staged reduction in tax relief on mortgage interest, which is a useful parallel.
I have already said that the relief costs about £120 million a year. Against it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has said, must be weighed the extra costs to the NHS of subscribers who give up their PMI as a result of losing relief. As I have described, we could be talking of up to 300,000 people. The Minister's reply will be entirely meaningless unless she can tackle that specific question, and in detail. There are worrying parallels with other Government policies, such as the recent Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. Like that measure, the one that we are discussing is petty and vindictive, with no tangible saving. It has at its heart the desire to remove choice.
The proposed measure is yet another policy initiative that has not been properly thought through. Perhaps it should join the ever lengthening queue of reviews promised by the Government. It is yet another attack on pensioners in our society. We may well see an attack on private pension provision in the forthcoming Budget. Now it is being suggested that pensioners should pay prescription charges, and that those going into hospital or being visited by a general practitioner should also be charged. None of these dramatic departures from the founding principles of the NHS appeared in the Labour manifesto.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Is it not at the heart of the issue that

pensioners whose income is on the margin will have to relinquish their private health schemes? We are talking not of wealthy pensioners but of those whose income is at the margin. That is what is so cruel.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have described, it is just one of a series of measures that the Government have brought forward, or will bring forward, that will have the effect of disadvantaging pensioners in my constituency, in my hon. Friend's constituency, and across the country.
I urge the Government not to break faith with pensioners in respect of private medical insurance.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing the debate. He made a number of interesting points about tax relief for private medical insurance, to which I paid careful attention.
I realise that tax relief on private medical insurance is a matter of some interest to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and I hope that he will understand if I do not comment on the possibility of any future tax changes affecting this relief. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate in any way what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do in his forthcoming Budget. I am sure that, in this, the hon. Gentleman had no great expectations.
Tax relief for premiums paid on private medical insurance for the over-60s is of fairly recent origin. It was introduced only in 1989 and took effect from 1 April 1990. When it was first introduced, as the hon. Gentleman said, relief was given at both the basic and higher rates of tax. That did not last long. Relief at the higher rate was withdrawn with effect from 6 April 1994 in relation to payments made on or after that date.
That change reflects, perhaps, a less than total commitment to the relief by the then Government. It is certainly true that, when the relief was first introduced, there were reservations even on the Conservative Benches about whether it was right to give such a tax relief. Indeed, on Second Reading, the previous hon. Member for Beaconsfield expressed "major reservations" about the introduction of such a tax relief.
The tax relief is not unconditional. There are restrictions about the type of treatment that can be included if payments under a contract of insurance are to qualify for the relief. To qualify, a private medical insurance contract can offer only certain approved benefits, which, broadly speaking, are limited to medical and surgical treatments of a kind normally available in the national health service.
When the relief was introduced in 1990, the then Government stated that they intended the relief to encourage the take-up of medical insurance by older people. Arguments against the relief centred on the fact that the cost was largely what is known as dead weight. It would primarily benefit those who had already taken out medical insurance or who would have done so anyway. Events have largely confirmed the truth of that concern.
In the period from 1990–91 to 1996–97, the estimated number of contracts rose by only 25,000, from 350,000 to 375,000. The number of people covered by such contracts rose, on our estimates, from about 500,000 to 550,000. It seems that the cost of this relief continues to be largely dead weight—that is, going to people who have already decided to take out medical insurance. In addition, a tax relief for a select group of taxpayers ran counter to the policy of having a broad tax base and low rates. That was the stated policy of the then Government, but they chose to make an exception in this instance.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not opposed to private medical treatment; it clearly has a part to play in the care of people in this country.

The public sector, which is supremely important in its provision, can have a good working relationship with the private sector.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of all his comments and concerns on behalf of his constituents, and that any of my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based on effective and genuine need and on a proper assessment of what is best for the taxpayers of this country. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to support the health service, to continue to support the lowest-paid pensioners, and to do nothing to undermine their access to the national health service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.